I don't think that handholding people through normal social interaction should be a requirement to any process.

Word, Denise.

Honestly, I would be really, ecstatically happy if we left our policies alone in this matter. Let's not codify a process for this. We did a great job of getting through a tough time, and I have no doubts that we will do so in the future, simply by taking things as they come and talking about them from every angle until we're blue in the face. Nothing is broken, so let's not fix it.

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.

Telling the offender to bring all questions about the warning to Bureaucracy accomplishes two things.

It removes the appearance that cool kids are talking about you in a secret room (even though they're not, because all the threads are open to everyone to begin with).

It also takes the warned poster out of the hot environment where s/he committed the offense. Doing this also manages to save the pleasant atmosphere of the thread for the posters who were enjoying it, prior to any incident.

I like Cindy's suggestions.

Uh...not to stifle the discussion but I'd kind of like to stifle the discussion of mieskie's suspension. I think we've identified the few procedural elements that we'd like adjust for future situations. But we really did discuss this to the tune of 6,000 posts before and everybody seems to think we did the right thing on this occasion.

Also, I'd just like to see a little summing up so essential points don't get lost in the flow. Of course, this is just my opinion and there may be crucial elements to this discussion which need much further hashing out and I'm missing them. In which case, do carry on. But I'm just putting out a motion to table this - or rather let's wrap it up, and let it sink in.

I agree with David.

But I'm just putting out a motion to table this - or rather let's wrap it up, and let it sink in.

Remember, table's one of those words that's just asking for trouble.

So... where were we on the music thread tally? (changing vote to, oh, heck, why not.)

I think the Yays have it for music. Now you musicistas need to pick a name.

I think the Yays have it for music. Now you musicistas need to pick a name.

I'm guessing "Once More With Feeling" is too obvious. "Give me something to sing about"?

Now you musicistas need to pick a name.

Uh..."Give Me Something To Sing About - The Music Discussion"

I shared Hec's brain! Fascinating!

the way Natter works it doesn't work well for in depth discussions of stuff on a long term basis.

Askye, I totally know what you mean and agree. It doesn't work for long term discussions. But sometimes, I'd like less in depth discussions... particularly when I've just read 300 posts about everyone's personal snot monster or what everyone had for breakfast today or the day of posts about cats. So I giggled at Natter being characterized for NOT being in depth enough.

But flirting and silly sexy language still certainly belongs in Natter;

Well, I don't know and I won't speak for msbelle because she does a lovely job on her own, but I think the point was not so much the 10-year-old, but that we do have mature labels on threads and keeping the porn there seems logical.

and, for the rest of the week, Burrell is me because she posted what I think about thread proliferation. If we have a music and movie thread, can we also have a ready-made style craftiness thread? And West Coast Only Post and Watch Thread? And why I hated TTT thread?

"And you can sing along?"

"Give me something to sing about?"

"A breakaway hit or more of a boog number?"