what has happened to Bitches?

Yeah, I'd rather not bring this into discussion. Because threads change because different people want different things. Not because anybody is doing anything wrong. It's the natural life cycle of a thread (or board). There's no way to address it without it being a critique of (legitimate) individual style.

FWIW, I think Minearvearse has sucked up a lot of the activity lately.

Poor Sophia. And now she's too overworked to even hang out here!

Oh, and for the record, I know it's always hard for you, Beverly, but you consistently make really great posts in here (and around b.org, of course, but that's not the same).

edit: good point, David.

If Gloomcookie doesn't think it's inappropriate enough to warrant disciplinary action then that (to me) defines it as a minor infraction. Which is, exactly how I would've described it.

I never said that and I would describe it as insulting and offensive (and I'm not even talking about the name thing - it was the fairly clear implication that my family and I are not intelligent that pushed it over the line for me). What I said was that I'm not up for debating it to death and for (I'm sure) getting pissed all over again. I'm done with it and wishing we had an ENUF filter.

FTR, the proposals about how to warn, what happens when warned and so forth, is here: msbelle "Sunnydale Press" Apr 19, 2003 12:02:50 am PDT

I was unable to find that info in the etiquette, FAQ, or How-to. It should be somewhere.

And

What I said was that I'm not up for debating it to death

specifically when you have tried to talk it out in thread and move something here, it doesn't have to be you debating so much as people either supporting it or not. If 10 people do then there is a warning. Period. That's It.

You can talk all you want about being conflict avoidy and stressed out by these talks...

Hey, people are coming forward and saying "X makes me uncomfortable". I think we can listen and try to respond out of, you know, the goodness of our hearts and the wish for widespread happiness.

Seriously. Why SHOULD they be stressed to tears to be heard when we are perfectly intelligent people capable of taking others wishes into account even if they DON'T post them loudly and repeatedly?

But Trudy, just because it was harder for someone to say something, doesn't mean that their words weigh more.

Any more than I believe that lots of words by someone who says them easily weighs more.

Scrappy can make one post in an ocean of posts, and I'll see it, and take it into consideration, and it will affect me and change the way I feel.

Just because someone feels drowned, doesn't mean that they are. Sometimes mouthy people pick up the gauntlet for the unmouthy.

You do it all the time.

Why SHOULD they be stressed to tears to be heard when we are perfectly intelligent people capable of taking others wishes into account even if they DON'T post them loudly and repeatedly?

Sophia chose to deal with the stress because it mattered to her. What I don't get is your insistence that we aren't taking people's wishes into account. What exactly do you think should be done? If people (a) aren't willing to discuss the issue or (b) bring it to a vote, how exactly are we supposed to know what the wishes are? Elena could have very easily posted Deathmatch notices at the beginning of a new character bracket (as Ple suggests) and that would've been a compromise rather than a capitulation. It would've cut the notices down in volume without eliminating them. Right down the middle. In fact, I wish she'd do that.

Just as an amusing sidenote interjected: I just re-read the thing in the FAQ about Hec and Knut, and Dana TOTALLY imposed her will on others! Kinda. She didn't get to pick their new names, as it turned out, but she sure tried.

That could be why Knut left....