There's no obvious thing saying that it isn't the Feets making the decision.

I'm not saying the current wording is good (unless it's spelled out repreatedly elsewhere that the Stompies are merely enforcers of community will). Both points are important. Allyson can't post a warning, and I can't make one up.

if you transcribed it I bet one of us would recognize the post, or at least the writer's style.

But it's not from the buffy threads - I think it's from the Florida threads during the election chaos.

But - reading it now I really couldn't tell you why it's my favorite - it's much loftier than what I usually enjoy but it just struck me as kind of wise:

Politics, the aesthetics of mass organization, will never make anyone happy (with the possible exception of politicians), it can only make things "less worse." Culture and art, consistently make individuals happy, but can never change the world. The key is for each of us to be engaged in each. In politics because we are members of a group and sub-groups and are biologically indistinct. In art because our minds are, in their darkest hours, alone and discreet. Politics because our selves are meaningless, Art because, in spite of that, they are all we have. We are molecules held together by the tension of wanting to collapse in on ourselves and the opposing desire to spin-off as far from ourselves as possible.

Both points are important. Allyson can't post a warning, and I can't make one up.

Yes, precisely. I just want people to understand. Of course, I have no suggestion for better text.

I think Sophie makes excellent points, and I do think that newbies would be better served first reading the site etiquette, rather than the FAQ, before "joining in the fun." People looking to learn their way around a new place may look for a FAQ

Too true. For myself, it never occurred to me that the FAQ would not be an ideal place to start before reading the board, but you're right.

Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet. If you don't listen to the warning, you will be suspended for two months. And if you come back unreformed, you will be banned. Banning is rare and very much a last resort.

OK, how about like this?

Demon-like behavior may lead to an Action by the community (link to something that explains the whole thing). Someone will tell you in-thread if you have gone over the line. If you do it again, it may be brought up in Bureaucracy (again with the linking), and may lead to a suspension. And if you come back unreformed, you will be banned. Banning is rare and very much a last resort.

How about the NAFDA suddenly expands to 32-point type when you do a mouseover and shrieks like Wesley in Buffy S3?

In future, please wait until I'm not wolfing down a crunchy-crusted mouthful of vegetarian pizza before posting something like that. You nearly killed me!

Just wanted to pop in and say that I'm really happy to see this thread getting so productive and purposeful again.

I know that B'crcy can be contentious and that the debates, especially the heated ones, are necessary and important. However, it's also nice to see the dispute evolve into meaningful changes once everyone has had a chance to vent/discuss/rant/Doberlize etc.

Also wanted to second Sophia's request to have something big and obvious (like "Newbies - to avoid tripping in the guac, go here first!") very visible on the main homepage that links directly to the etiquette section of the revised FAQ.

Honestly? I think I only avoided major guac because I got lucky. I may have stepped on a few toes accidently, but I at least didn't cause massive anger. However, I could just have easily gotten overenthusiastic (I shudder at what would have happened if the next F2F was in my neighborhood -- I felt great empathy with Beej on that issue, at least) and really made a mess. Even repeated visits to the original FAQ didn't clarify a few issues that are now under debate (such as the "talking into the air" syndrome), and I'm so grateful that they're being addressed now.

So thanks.

ETA: Wow. I killed B'crcy. Is that bad?

Wow. I killed B'crcy. Is that bad?

No, Kristin, it's very very good. :-) I'm glad to see the discussion looking more positive and actiony in here. A huge thank you to everyone putting in time and effort on this!

But I'm mostly just popping in to register my amusement at having been confused, however briefly, with olde schoole Katie P., who sounds like she was quite a character. (I joined up in fall 2001, shortly before OMWF aired.)

So I finally read the last 400 posts. My two cents? I dislike the social capital concept. IMO it's a snotty concept used as an excuse/reason to be rude. I think a pecking order exists and social capital is just a euphamistic way of saying that. Why not just say it? Also, perhaps the FAQ should acknowledge that there are groups of people who IM all the time, email all the time, journal all the time. Maybe not. Dunno. It was a gobsmacked revelation to me when I found out. I nearly had a heart attack the first time I emailed someone, thinking it was a transgression, having made the assumption that the group dynamics/culture were that the conversations all took place ON the board, so that everyone would have the benefit of what was going on. Um, NOT.

Should I post? Uh, gonna, then go home and spork myself in the eye.

ETA: Wow. I killed B'crcy. Is that bad?

Seconding the good. You made a good post in a nicely quiet time on the thread, Kristin.

(Edited to talk to the right Kristin)