Maybe when the confirmation email is sent, there should be a specific sentence or two referencing Bureaucracy. "Please read the FAQ before posting, if you have questions or concerns about Buffista policies, please visit the Bureaucracy thread located on the right sidebar. Discussions about administration, moderation, and community take place in this thread. If you encounter etiquette problems, this is also the place to air grievances."

You know, but more eloquent.

The fact is, if mieskie had responded politely to Betsy, Plei, Fay or anyone else that called him on the comments on Dawn's physique, he wouldn't have even gotten one warning. Please remember that when you're feeling sorry for him, or wondering if the process was fair.

I should point out, in case it wasn't clear (not sure know if it was or not), that I don't feel sorry for mieskie. I added my voice to calls for his suspension, I don't see his case as being particularly ambiguous and of course he has now posted something of a defence of his actions, which doesn't change my position on his suspension. I do think that when we're considering suspension, the subject should know where it's happening for both practical reasons (protecting the nature of the other threads) and by reason of the standards we want to uphold (openness being probably the one I feel most relevant).

That said, I think when someone gets an on-the-board warning, the end of the warning should say, "If you have any questions about this warning and why you received it, please feel free to address the subject in the Bureaucracy thread." The FAQ and etiquette links should be provided in the warning, as well, so that the offender, if s/he cares to, can go figure out where he erred.

That would work for me. That would, IMO, constitute fair notice.

One thing that might be worth considering -- didn't mieskie make a point about how, in general, newsgroups and other multi-user places on the internet have a very brusque, rude, if-you-can't-stand-the-heat kind of attitude. I know some groups will just crucify you if you ask something from the FAQ, for instance.

It's a level of "debate" that a lot of people are familiar with and even enjoy.

I don't know if it's explicit enough that we don't use that standard, that we try very hard to be polite. I know it says we're flame-free and so on, but could it say "We know that other such groups on the internet are very outspoken and have few boundaries, and if someone calls you an 'idiot', you just have to take it, but that's not how we do it here." or the like?

I do think that when we're considering suspension, the subject should know where it's happening for both practical reasons (protecting the nature of the other threads) and by reason of the standards we want to uphold (openness being probably the one I feel most relevant).

Notice should be accomplished by the combination of FAQ and official warning. What if there is no substantial discussion here? What if it was Christiandollarstore?

I just want to see where we stand on the subject of "discussion." Do we want it part of the procedure, like a trial? Cuz I don't.

And if there's no discussion, then apparently there's no fair notice. What if, say, unnamed troll posted in a small subset thread-- only a few people there, like pornanthology or something. So one of the regular posters to that thread came here, asked for warning and suspension and it was granted summarily. Would that person have been treated unequally by virtue of not annoying enough people to create a discussion?

I want to boil this down to the necessity of defense and pointing to bureaucracy. I don't think these should be added to the procedure, and I don't think we should say it's necessarily unfair when it hasn't happened, because there will be cases when it won't.

I'm with Shawn. There is no trial. That's not what this was.

I'm clearly stepping in in the middle of something here, but out of curiousity I wanted to ask ita or someone else who Knows Things: how many users does the board have now?

P.S. Ban the bitch! (Did I mention I have no idea what's going on here? Oh, gee, it's not me is it? I knew my big mouth would get me in trouble one of these days! Darn you pesky kids! Darn you all!)

614, jengod.

I'm with Shawn. There is no trial. That's not what this was.

For all that it's hard to avoid legal terminology in such a matter, I don't think anyone's saying it is.

I think Cindy's suggestion, that a reference to the Bureaucracy thread in the official warning, will cover situations regardless of the length of discussion required to reach a decision.

What if it was Christiandollarstore?

Christiandollarstore, please note, was not suspended. From ita's post on the subject (#544): "The note just said we discuss, not preach or sell, so if s/he wants to do that, s/he'd be welcome back." There was no two-months' suspension, simply a shutting down of spamming. The poster was not prevented from coming back any time they liked.

But yes, a discussion about spamming or some other more easily identifiable behaviour is likely to be a faster one. Again, Cindy's suggestion should be sufficient to cover it. As long as they know such discussions can occur here, then I'm comfortable with the onus being on them to check.

Still thinking that our established policy worked quite well. I don't advocate making the FAQ any more involved or lengthy because that will make it less likely to be read.

Most posters seem to have no problem figuring out what is acceptable behavior. I think members will explain how we do things here to posters who don't get it.

We had a lot of discussion because we all wanted to do the right thing. I don't think any future problems will require quite so much debate.

614, jengod.

And, is one of them Joss? Because I can't recall...