Let me modify the proposal. Let the stompies have the power you suggest. But never automatically put anything to a vote. And never automatically exclude anything from a vote.

Instead let it come to a vote only if someone other than the person stomped thinks it should, and they receive 4 seconds. In other words the stompies can stomp without asking anyone, (but requiring minimum numbers of stompies for certain things as suggested). But if five people (other than the person stomped) think they acted unjustly it can be brought to a vote.

Misha, Fred, no disrespect, but that's a hideous idea. If there's one thing we've proved here, it's that the people who are likely to be Stompies fall into 2 categories - those who would shudder and run from the responsibility, and would probably do the job well, and those wo would relish a chance to Sort Things Out, and should under no circumstances be given any power at all(which isn't to say those people aren't well-intentioned, BTW). What you end up with is a self-selecting pool of stompies, people who (with the best will in the world) are authoritarians. I'd rather have an ongoing agonised debate forever in Bureaucracy than that.

Or, to put it more concisely, What ita Said. Especially the bit about knickers. Mmmm.....knickers....

Valid point, but an executive decision doesn't fix that. It also doesn't fix whether or not he's notified by e-mail.

I know, I was just pointing out some different things that I thought could be handled better next time.

If there's one thing we've proved here, it's that the people who are likely to be Stompies fall into 2 categories - those who would shudder and run from the responsibility, and would probably do the job well, and those wo would relish a chance to Sort Things Out, and should under no circumstances be given any power at all

We need Zaphod Beeblebrox.

It goes along nicely with our MVT of 42, doesn't it?

I have one more question and I swear I am NOT trying to be difficult...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation and talking at cross purposes but putting aside anything that's happened in the past.

We have someone, anyone---new person that joins, or someone who already belongs--who does something that violates our etiquette or rules, and they are asked to change and they don't? Then what do we call it when action is taken against them? To me, when you have to take action against someone because they have violated the rules of the community that's punishing someone.

I don't get why punish in that sense is a bad thing.

I don't get why punish in that sense is a bad thing.

It just gives me the creeps as a word, actually. I don't have a problem with the concept. The word feels... oh, I don't know. Authoritarian. Which it is, of course, it's just that it makes me feel uncomfortable, and I wanted to mention that.

Get MARCIE up and running?

YES. Please. I wouldn't have given a shit about m/s/A (who I found grating in all his incarnations) if I could have just filtered him.

To avoid fighting over semantics, why not refer to it as "stomping".

And again a simple proposal - we keep old rule first offense warning, second suspend, third banning.

It can only be done by a certain number of stompies - don't know what that number should be - an absolute majority? A majority of those online at time of the offense, but with some minimum?

No vote or discussion other than by stompies is required.

But decision can be overriden in two ways:

1) by an absolute majority of stompies, if decision is made by less than that.

2) By a vote fo buffistas - but only if certain number of people want a vote and discusison on a stomping. Five is what we voted on (1+4 seconds). I would say that no one should second such an appeal unless they actually believe a decision was unjust.

it's that the people who are likely to be Stompies fall into 2 categories - those who would shudder and run from the responsibility, and would probably do the job well, and those wo would relish a chance to Sort Things Out, and should under no circumstances be given any power at all

I respectfully and completely disagree. What you're basically saying is that no one who would want to be an admin should be one, because Hitler!.

I think that's an insult to all the good admins in the world, from TT's Mary Beth to Lime at TPW to whoever they have on TWoP who's not power-mad (there MUST be 1 or 2, right?).

I'm not convinced we need moderators, but I don't think it's the worst idea we've ever had. I do think we need to talk about what powers Stompies have -- not with an eye on taking anything away, but with an eye on understanding how the rest of the board can fit in to the moderation process.

(I hope this makes sense -- I'm on deadline, so ignore it if not!)

Let me talk specifically. There are highly respected buffistas, some of whom I like a lot, who shouldn't ever be stompies. And who would want to be stompies. THey would have the best of intentions, but they would end up stomping based on their narrow idea of how a board should be.