Gotta come back to say you'd better not be. You did something I totally admire. At first you objected because of some preconceptions. You listened. And then you wrote a lovely, respectful compromise proposal that addressed the issue and respected the staff. It's not at all your fault if the rampant paranoia in this place causes some to lump you into a group of rabble-rousing undesireables with some malicious intent to entrap staff. But if anyone dares to do that, I'll take much exception to it.
I thank you for listening and trying to understand and not assuming that this is some sort of devious trap being set to catch the staff. Contrary to what some have asserted, this was not undertaken with that spirit. At all. Period.
I've been reluctant to say this, but I think I should. I really, honestly thought that staff would be cool with this. However, I no longer think that most are. And that's all I'll say about that.
But it occurs to me that I should say that much because I think that Topaz signed on after reading my assurances that it was, and after reading Cardie's post (she really is still a mod) and LoP's (who really was at the time an admin) and Banapis's (who really is an admin right now).
Now that I know better, I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that this proposal, should it pass, would be welcomed by the staff in general. It won't be.
So with that knowledge, Topaz, if you want to bow out, I totally understand. The same goes for GiGi and QT. And, honestly, I don't know what good it would do to impose a values statement with a consequence on a staff that is reluctant to accept it.
I was all set to proceed out of sheer stubbornness and respect for those who had worked on this. But at this point, I honestly think we need to consider withdrawing this proposal. (1) In all likelihood it will fail, (2) in the process, those who put it forward will merely be villified as having malicious motives--regardless of what they say, and (3) in the very remote possibility it made it to a poll and then passed, the staff would most likely resent it. And as I said, there is no point in force feeding values statements to people. We see how well "be excellent to one another" has worked for many of the membership.
I think that one thing has become clear, though. There is considerable support among the membership for staff to conduct themselves off-site as they please. So next time this happens (the likelihood of which is greater now that off-site freedom of speech for staff has been rousingly affirmed) I hope that people remind others that this is cool--even if they or a friend is the target.
So people should not make judgments about staff based on their off-site comments. And that is an admirable goal for the membership. But I'm afraid I'm a little too human to aspire to that. Others must not do this, but I have to confess that when I read things that some other members write off-site, that colors my impression of them--their temperament, their maturity, their judgment, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, depending on what they say and how they say it. I don't know if I can grant some sort of special immunity-from-judgment to staff based on their off-site remarks. But others think they can, so that's that. Matter closed. Let freedom of speech ring.