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...

Wow. That's impressive. Someday, we should make someone smart and unbusy parse the numbers. Frequency of posting, who joined when, cross-referenced, etc. Has there been a noticeable increase in traffic since the Joss posts?

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 think it is pretty clear, in the FAQ, in the filk, and in the general tone of the discussion.