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

It would be. But dancing around it? Really infuriating.

If you're not talking about anyone in particular, I'm perfectly willing to discount what you're saying. If there are actual people who feel this way, I'd like to know who they are.

What Jesse said.

If there are real posters and real situations you're thinking about, it seems to me like you have a number of options: You can confront them in-thread, you can bring the specific incidents to bureau, you can email them and ask them to chill, you can put on your mental ENUF filter and scroll on by.

I personally would put bringing it to bureau without naming names way, way down the list, as it seems passive-agressive to me.

I work in a bureaucracy. I don't want to play in one.

I sympathize, but I don't feel like anyone is forcing anyone else to get involved with the bureaucratic stuff.

(And I'm like Allyson or Cashmere -- I thrive on debate right up to the point where real feelings get hurt.)

My point is Buffy at TT/WX and b.org used to be about discussion of shows. Now that they are ending there is more and more debate about the goings on on the board.

I will qualify this by saying I'm not subscribed to the Angel thread because I get Angel 5 days later than USA-ans, so maybe I'm just missing being a part of that kind of discussion.

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

I am all for keeping this non-inflammatory, but broad statements about long-time posters who apparently feel marginalized need to be supported at some point.

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

Less inflamatory than this? Anyway, I realized after I posted that what would be best would be if those people would step forward, but if they've left, they wouldn't. And I really appreciate what Sue did say.

I understand what you mean, Megan. A lot of energy that was beng used to analyze the 'magic is crack" metaphor is fizzling over into Natter and Literary and Bureau now. I'd also love to have more show-specific discussion.

Sadly, Angel is on hiatus for another two weeks, and we only have the three episodes of Wonderfalls to obsess over so far.

But...who left? When? After what?

And how many stayed?

I don't feel like anyone is forcing anyone else to get involved with the bureaucratic stuff.

No, no one is but sometimes you can't just sit back and be quiet.

Here's my example. Someone a while back posted that they thought we should close the Atlantic Canadians thread when Buffy ended. No one thought to even ask the posters there if suggesting this would be ok. Someone had to email me and draw my attention to the posts in this thread to let me know that the thread I post most in was being considered for closure. I spoke up here and everyone got very defensive.

Sue and Megan, thanks for coming in here and speaking up.

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

Therein lies the rub. I don't think anyone who is a so-called activist poster is agitating for anything but the good of the board. The problem lies in the fact that people have different definitions of "the good of the board".

Also? Every member of a collective, at one point or another, feels marginalized. I have, and I'm a fairly long-term poster (on and off since TT). I've left threads because of it. Did it suck? Yes. Do I miss what it used to be? Yes. But people change and communities change and other people won't like it but that's the way it is.

So, while I'm appreciative of the chance to step back and reflect on my behavior as a poster and on the behavior of the board as a whole (and I am), I do not understand quite what we're supposed to do about this entire issue.

edit: Bloody hell. So very late. Sorry. But my points stand, and I *am* appreciating the discussion, and I would like to have concrete ideas on how to proceed.