Neither situation would ever move to a vote, and my behaviour would not be in violation of any rules.

If you continued to harrass me (you BITCH!), I would eventually ask that you be warned, or whatever the procedure is.

Not all activism is bad. When it is done with the good of the board in mind - it's excellent.

But are you suggesting that people post with the destruction of the board in mind? And then you have to define, "what is the good of the board."

When it is done with the good of the board in mind - it's excellent.

I guess I've got a very different perspective, because even the people I've strongly disagreed with only bother to come in here because they have the good of the board in mind. Their idea of "good" is just different than mine (and obviously, WRONG) but I still respect their motives.

Kat, I think you found the key distinction. Not all activism is bad. When it is done with the good of the board in mind - it's excellent.

You have failed to point out a single case of "activism" that was done for any other reason. General statements about increasingly aggressive mystery posters are self-defeating for because they don't help the board understand what or who you feel needs changing.

Honestly, what are you proposing? Putting a gag on people who post....assertively?

As simply as I can break it down, and in the vernacular of Beer Bad, let me clarify my earlier point by simply suggesting:

Assertive and constructive good. Insensitive and selfish, bad.

Like, msbelle, I prefer the civil and thoughtful discussion

Agreed, with a highlighter stroke over *thoughtful*

We have lost good, active, people because this board is not as comfortable as it once was. It's more confrontational, we have to vent every little damn thing, "scroll by" and "let it slide" seem to happen less and less.

And this is a bad thing for people who don't like confrontation. I'm confrontational, and it's a happier place for me. I'd be miserable if no one ever got into heated debate, and I'd leave for more controversial waters.

I haven't left, but I definitely have stepped back, because I'm not comfortable with the level of debate and bureaucracy that's involved in making decisions. (And I'm a bureaucrat.) Some people enjoy debate, some people find it stressful. It seems to me that the more vocal people by sheer force of persisitence drown out the opinions of those who quietly voice an opinion and leave the debate to the fray.

I unsubscribed from this thread a long time ago, but genuine care over what happens to the board causes me to look in everytime the post count rise (much to the detriment of my blood pressure.) I try to skim the acrimonious stuff. And I try to contribute my opinion when I can, but I rarely feel like it's taken into account, since I don't hang around and fight for my point of view.

Assertive and constructive good. Insensitive and selfish, bad.

Are you seeing specific posters doing the latter here? You seem to have given that impression to several people here, myself included.

What's the fear, Megan? Where in a debate to you feel afraid or unheard?

I'm just the kind of person who wants to be liked, to not rock the boat, so I don't speak up unless I'm really, really passionate about something. It's my own character flaw.

I guess I feel that now that Buffy is over, we've moved from debating about whether B/S, B/A, or S/X are the one true pairing, to debating about what posts go where, re-writing the FAQ, and how to treat new posters. I work in a bureaucracy. I don't want to play in one.

Would Rafmun naming specific people or incidents be anything but inflamatory in the extreme?

I understand the desire for concrete examples, but let's keep the convresation about tone? Please?

And I try to contribute my opinion when I can, but I rarely feel like it's taken into account, since I don't hang around and fight for my point of view.

Yes this.