And were they dealt with in-thread? Did anyone ask for a warning to be issued?

Why are we discussing this in such vague terms if there are specific incidents that should be addressed?

[edited to clarify: I feel like there are two groups of people in this conversation. There are people who know what's being discussed, and people who don't. And if the people in the first group aren't willing to let the rest of us in on what's really going on, then perhaps it should be dealt with in backchannel. The vague accusations are helping no one.]

We probably did.

How is it possible that we lost more people than we did? What evidence do you have to support your probably?

Jess, yes the ones I'm thinking of were dealt with in thread.

And, I wasn't discussing them at all. As I thought I made clear, I was simply answering your question.

Yeah, there's been exchanges. But there was also the MinearEyes kid who took a spectacular swan dive into the guacamole, and I tried my damned hardest to hose that kid down.

Sometimes, it doesn't work. He didn't fit. Came from a board culture that's on the opposite end of our spectrum, and wasn't willing to budge. If he had stayed, he would have poured the salsa on his head and wiped his ass with the tortilla chips before lighting the house on fire.

Kindness wouldn't have changed that.

And, I wasn't discussing them at all. As I thought I made clear, I was simply answering your question.

I'm just trying to figure out what's driving this conversation. It feels like more than just our annual spring cleaning, for some reason.

It is my opinion:

If you think someone broke community standards by a post, whether or not that post was directed AT YOU, either call them on it in thread and follow the procedures we voted on and passed, OR LET IT GO.

And if the behaviour was months ago and procudure was not followed then, and you think it should have been, well, follow it next time.

If you want an apology from someone for something, ask for it, you may be disappointed and not get it.

I'm just trying to figure out what's driving this conversation. It feels like more than just our annual spring cleaning, for some reason.

I get that feeling, too. But no one is willing to offer specifics, and so all of the attempts to discuss for the past 2 days have, in some cases, been causing even more agita. But I, for one, have no idea what problem I'm *really* addressing here.

After 2 days and 500 posts of discussing Rafmun's original point (with, yes, digressions, because that's the Buffista way -- there is no talking stick), I still don't know what the final "solution" was supposed to be. We acknowledge that yes, some people feel steamrolled over and less likely to speak up. We acknowledge that yes, some people are too aggressive, though nobody really knows who those people are, because no one will name names. We acknowledge that, yes, it's important to make an effort to play nice and be thoughtful before hitting "Post."

That was all in Nutty's "proposal," no?

Beyond every registered member signing a pledge to follow those rules, I ask this quite honestly, what else could we have done? That's serious. Tell me, and I'll do it.

We acknowledge that yes, some people feel steamrolled over and less likely to speak up. We acknowledge that yes, some people are too aggressive, though nobody really knows who those people are, because no one will name names. We acknowledge that, yes, it's important to make an effort to play nice and be thoughtful before hitting "Post."

That was all in Nutty's "proposal," no?

Beyond every registered member signing a pledge to follow those rules, I ask this quite honestly, what else could we have done? That's serious. Tell me, and I'll do it.

Yes, this.

And what msbelle said.

What msbelle said.

Also, while the conversation over the last couple of days has been heated in here (and be here I mean this specific thread), I can't say I've seen any personal attacks - or what I'd label personal attacks. The topic was margnilization felt by board members, old and new, by more agressive posters. I don't personally think that conflates to personal attacks. If the board members feel they are being attacked, then that is a different discussion altogether, and one that's more serious, IMO.

There's nothing wrong with us. This conversation started primarily because Rafmun made some general comments about how some activist posters seem to always get their way. Well they don't. Conversation over.

We've been talking like something major needs to be fixed. IMO, the only problem we have is discussing ad infinitum the minutae of being a community. And it's one of the flaws that makes our community human. And I love us for it. But the fact is we are a warm, friendly, inviting, engaging, intelligent, snarky, and fun community. We're not perfect, because none of our members are perfect. I know that I'm not. But we're exactly as advertised.

So we can tweak our FAQ. We can have the who-we-are convos over and over again. We can try to deal with problems when they arise, as we always have. But fundamentally, we don't need to change a damn thing. I like us just the way we are.