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.

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.

What Jess said.

Also, to state the stupidly obvious, personal attacks/insults are in the eye of the beholder. I could probably fling a few sharp words at Allyson in frustration that she would brush off, but those same words aimed at someone else might truly offend them. When you factor in 800 or 1000 other people, all with their own quirks and hot buttons, it gets really complicated.

Also, to state the stupidly obvious, personal attacks/insults are in the eye of the beholder. I could probably fling a few sharp words at Allyson in frustration that she would brush off, but those same words aimed at someone else might truly offend them. When you factor in 800 or 1000 other people, all with their own quirks and hot buttons, it gets really complicated.

When you factor in that some of us (looking at me) are the really warm fuzzy type who take offense on behalf of others sometimes, then it can get really messy.

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.

Three, actually. There's those of us who don't really care and think this subject has drug out too long, forcing us once again to revisit old conflicts which were better left undisturbed.

Much love, but there is indeed such a thing as too much process. And this is a Californian saying that.