These people left for a variety of reasons, not solely and specifically because of a more aggressive posting style.

Hell, *I* left for a while in part because of John H.'s aggressive and combatative posting style.

Aimee, you're entitled to say something in thread. For one thing, if handled properly, it keeps the enforcement of social norms public, which I think is a good thing, particularly in light of the current discussion. You can choose to take it backchannel, of course.

What Hec's points said to me:

Matt's history of the Bronze

Suggests that some form of policing is necessary. I can't say I'm in love with our current informal style, but anything more formal would likely be worse. Power is too easy to misuse, and giving anyone formal policing power creates risks to the board that I'd rather not have. (I vaguely remember having suggested something at one point that contradicts the above. My opinions evolve.)

Shawn's Good Citizenship

There's a corollary, and that is that newbies, pretty much by definition, don't have social capital. I tend not to dismiss newbies out of hand -- outsiderness can have a valuable perspective that insiders are too wrapped up in the situation to have. But newbies haven't built up the credibility that longtime posters have. If longtime posters X, Y, or Z say something, I have a context to place their comments into. Unlike with newbies A, B, or C.

there's nothing at all wrong with aspiring to some level of graciousness

Even something as simple as posting, "Hi, Newbie!"

Thanks, Suela!

By the way, loving Hecubus and Nutty and Robin and Matt particularly today. Good, thoughtful, generous posts.

And Dana, who went forward and drafted new language for the FAQ. I think a recognition that the slower-moving threads are often good shallow water for beginners is a nice point.

Even something as simple as posting, "Hi, Newbie!"

Yeah. I'm bad at this, sometimes because I'm behind threads, sometimes because I'm skimming, and sometimes because I'm just not that outgoing, but I greatly admire people like Laura and Scrappy and Nilly, who are without fail, polite, welcoming, genuine, and pleasant.

Suggests that some form of policing is necessary.

You realize that we already have this, right?

Hell, *I* left for a while in part because of John H.'s aggressive and combatative posting style.

Well, that's because you're such a shrinking violet.

By the way, loving Hecubus and Nutty and Robin and Matt particularly today. Good, thoughtful, generous posts.

Ahhh, it's a good glowy feeling.

Those are good additions to etiquette, Dana. Did we add guacamole in there? I think it would be helpful for two reasons: (1) Newbies will learn that there are common mistakes which will piss people off; and (2) It's not the end of the world, or the end of their citizenship. People get over it, people are still welcome after mistakes to make amends.

Nodding head to Consuela's and Dana's last posts.

Also,

We're a very independent group here. Because of this, we react badly to anything that comes across as preaching. We also react badly when told [we need] to modify our behavior to accommodate someone or something.

Would it read better as "when told we should modify"?

I just want to say I was overwhelmed with the feeling of support I got yesterday. I'll really try to be more forthright when I think my POV is valid.

Did we add guacamole in there?

I figured that would go in the FAQ, since we're sort of trying to keep the ettiquette short and to the point. Maybe we add a reference to one of those bullet points that points to the guac entry in the FAQ?

(There is a point at which all this becomes slightly ridiculous, right?)

I'm off to be a responsible adult for a bit. Please, take apart the stuff I wrote, suggest changes, etc. I'll think about how to address Shawn's point about one person speaking on behalf of accepted community standards.