See, I think the day we start limiting what we can joke about is...um...an unfunny day?

I'm completely in favor of people not using the filter as a club to harass people with, but we can't pretend we don't have history with each other. A lot of us give each other shit. It's what we do. It's just something newbies will have to figure out.

In theory I agree, Dana. But part of what happened with Schmoker was that he tried to joke with people the same way they joke with each other, and it went really badly. I dunno. I don't want us to say something cannot be said, because that's getting kind of TWoP, but the tone would be so subjective that it might be easiest to make the rule that you don't talk abotu the filter.

I guess it goes back to one of the crucial questions -- who do we place the burden on? Do we take responsibility for making things as smooth as possible even if it means controlling our own behavior, or do we expect newbies to pay attention and pick up on our admittedly complicated behaviors?

I am a very, very firm believer in the onus being on the writer, no matter how long they've been around.

It's not just a question of newbies. I think the sensitivity on this issue is such that even jokes among people we know to be joking will make some of us uncomfortable.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect that we'll have a ton of filtering jokes. I'm just against saying "Do it and you'll be warned!" I liked the first part of Jon's proposed wording: "announcing you've filtered someone is considered extremely rude". As for a warning, we've laid out grounds for a warning in the ettiquette: "Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet." I think that covers it.

I think it needs to be clear that saying you're filtering someone counts as "demon-like behavior".

As opposed to how clear the criteria for "demon like" board behavior is now?

I'm in favor of not specifying. If it becomes a large issue, then reconsider.

I'd rather have cultural rather than official enforcement. I think a round of "Dude, that's rude" would be sufficient in most cases. If it's not - then I expect other problems are going on that would bring it up on the stompy radar.

I'm all for the civil discourse, and I would want everybody to treat filtering seriously - much like warnings. We don't joke about warnings here because we've all got the bruises from the disciplinary actions we've taken.

I would think that threats of filtering would be treated the way personal insults or hateful language are treated here: "That's incredibly inappropriate" or "That's rude. Please don't do that." or perhaps with newbies "We don't talk about filtering here and we don't use it as a way of sniping or backbiting. It's a tool, but we expect you to use it with discretion. Announcing who you've filtered is the height of rudeness."

Wouldn't that be sufficient in almost all instances? And when it isn't, again, I'd have to believe other demon like behavior was going on.

I think it needs to be clear that saying you're filtering someone counts as "demon-like behavior".

That's not covered by calling it "extremely rude"?

The other thing I was just thinking about in the shower (shut up) is whether we have to say that the filter is not an excuse for people to behave badly. You can't say to someone "I'm filtering you!" and you can't say "If you don't like what I'm saying, just filter me!"