I wasn't sure, because of your edit, Laura, so I left you off. Sorry I misread it.

You didn't misread Perky. I was more than vague.

This? Is how it is supposed to work. The person who goofed, even in a minor incident, says "Sorry". The person who might be offended says "Oh, don't worry about it." And social comfort is maintained.

---

Okay. Not having followed any of the linky citations Kat originally provided, I think we can say she and her ten agree-ers have followed the warning procedure. Could a Stompy Foot let Bureau know when a warning has been issued?

Then we can immediately get started on the meta-conversation about cocktail parties, communities, back-scratching, social capital, Light Bulbs, guacamole, the Politics Thread, wuffie, and all of us living in a van down by the river.

(Remember wuffie??)

---

I know it's embarassing to get called on posts, I've been there, certainly, but it comes down to how much you care about the community and the people within it, if it's a lot, then a little embarassment won't hold one back from trying to work it out and make some amends and a genuine effort to think about the words in the box and how they may affect others before tapping the Post Message button, yeah?

I agree so much with this.

---

Betsy reminds me that I meant to say:

No worries, Kat, and sorry it seemed I was calliing you out. Actually, I had to reread my own post to see if I had put Ginger in, since I had been thinking about it.

---

From Cheesebutt:

Warnings will be in effect for four months. [During this time, a warnable offense results in a suspension.] After four months, the slate is wiped clean.

A Warning will be notified over email, in the thread of incident, and in Bureaucracy.

To that end -- dylan, per Buffista procedure, an attempt to resolve offense in thread ( dw "Spike's Bitches 27: I'm Embarrassed for Our Kind." Nov 17, 2005 11:13:31 pm PST) hasn't met with satisfaction from all parties. Kat, here: Kat "Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?" Nov 17, 2005 11:40:03 pm PST, requests a warning, and ten people have seconded her. Therefore -- this is an official warning.

It seems that you've violated our community etiquette standards, viewable here. We've tried to resolve it in the context of your posts, but it looks like a problem. Please consider this an official warning that your behavior is not acceptable in this community.

To discuss your warning or your situation, please do so here. Thank you, and we hope to resolve this problem.

---

We have had good results from warnings, haven't we? That is, a poster(s) who didn't understand that he/she was rubbing people the wrong way being warned, and then coming back to be a good, regular and valued poster?

I think that's true. I don't remember who's specifically been warned or just "handled in thread," but I know there are people who came in to the b.org with a more aggressive tone than is appropriate in this community, and have learned to cool off.

I know we say this all the time, but the fact is, this community is not necessarily like the internet as a whole, and behavior or tone that is fine elsewhere will ruffle feathers here, and some people need to specifically learn that if they want to get along here. Others are here because they don't like the more aggressive places.

Anyway.

---

I feel compelled to note that

he said that the onus should be on us to email him when we have an issue with something Susan says

was answering a direct question: DavidS "Spike's Bitches 27: I'm Embarrassed for Our Kind." Nov 1, 2005 1:47:29 pm PST Granted, it was phrased rhetorically, but if someone describes a problem, I don't think it's out of line to offer a suggestion if you have one. I mean, that's why the blow-up happened in the first place.

there wasn't an apology for the comment

Yes there was, much earlier: dw "Spike's Bitches 27: I'm Embarrassed for Our Kind." Nov 1, 2005 1:29:08 pm PST

(Not disputing the bruised feelings at all, nor am I surprised that it wound up here. But I get compulsive about accuracy.)

---

I was seconding, but fuzzily. I'm glad a warning has been issued, because I think it's appropriate. I don't want either of them to go away, but if people don't stay within the rules of discourse, it hurts the whole board.

Then we can immediately get started on the meta-conversation about cocktail parties, communities, back-scratching, social capital, Light Bulbs, guacamole, the Politics Thread, wuffie, and all of us living in a van down by the river.

So, that serial comma is really unnecessary.

---

So now is the time in Bureaucracy to talk about:

a) social capital and modes of interpersonal communication
b) feelings
c) buttless chaps
d) All of the above.

What strikes me about recent events is that I have no horse in the race at all: I don't read the thread in question; it never spilled over to another thread (that I know of); I have only had reasonably positive dealings with DW and am a little surprised to see the drama that has resulted. So, no particularly strong feelings from me, although I'm glad that the system we set up (via much groaning and pink cheerleading) worked as we had designed it to work.

Also, buttless chaps should only be allowed on people without hairy butts.

---

buttless chaps

I'm opposed. I prefer to see as little naked ass as possible, even if it's hairless and so taut you could bounce a quarter off of it.

---