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.

---

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.

Seconded. Preserve what butt-mystery there is. Plus I'm always distracted by wondering how badly naked butts stick to chairs and such.

/natter

---

I dunno. Cheese butt - no chaps. Taut butt?

Okay, no chaps there either, but I had to think about it a little longer.

---

I have to go with C. Final answer.

---

I feel that one must have a significant amount of social capital, accumulated through interpersonal communication, in order to get away with buttless chaps.

I also advocate providing light bulbs at cocktail parties, so that people have enough light to not trip over the guacomole, especially if said cocktail party is happening in the van down by the river.

---

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.

bon bon has been warned officially and come through it okay dokay.

I missed all of everything, am glad people have the procedures marked for references and that they seem to work smoothly.

I WILL get busy on getting them typed up.

---