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.

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Mean 42

Huh.

To summarize so far, and reaching back into conversations about this we've had in the past:

(a) since the Stompies were not necessarily originally intended as decision-makers, they either need to be empowered as such specifically, or a different set of decision-makers needs to be empowered specifically.

(b) since the Stompies didn't feel entirely empowered as in (a), they did not know for sure when they should make Stompy Posts to offensive people, or Stompy Emails, and generally did not know in what sequence events should go. We need to invent a specific sequence or checklist of who makes what decision, and, decision being made, what actions are taken in which order to enforce it. This point also encompasses Gar's suggestions of What To Do If Any Future Stompy Decisions Are Disagreed With. (I tend to think that's a cart-before-the-horse suggestion, but we're eventually going to need both cart and horse, so I don't want to leave it out.)

(c) some people like the idea of a Council of Watch-Your-Tongue, inasmuch as the council would need to come to a lesser consensus than the whole board when taking action, but there would still be a checks-and-balances situation. Other people are wary that any such Council would supercede all the rule-by-voting progress we've just made, or else result in a dictatorship.

(d) suggestion has been made that the Stompies or the Council of Watch-Your-Tongue come to their consensus in public, but others have pointed out this would be cumbersome and end up in the same 50,000 posts, no consensus situation we're in now.

(e) MARCIE a priority, but we seem not to have designed specifications toward which the coders can be working. We should talk about this as soon as convenient.

(f) I thought we were talking about this on Monday?? Does nobody obey Nutty the All-Powerful?!?

Does that sound right so far?

Jim, no offense taken here. I'm not sure there are any good solutions, just less bad ones. You, ita, and others have pointed out the basic flaw. It's a big reason why I tried to limit the damage any one e.p. could do.

I also tried to think of some way to make sure that all active Buffistas would serve as e.p.s, but I couldn't get around 2 questions. (1) What's an "active Buffista"? (2) Is it fair to force anyone to police the board?

And FTR, I don't have any problem with the way the Stompies handled Anathema. They received info. They decided to look into it. Before they finished, Anathema decided to walk away.

I haven't worked out all my thoughts on all of this, but I will point out that if nothing else, we need to figure out if Official Warnings, Suspensions, and Bannings are decided in our new 7-day decision making process. Because a week is a long time to wait when people are pissed off about something specific. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not.

(f) I thought we were talking about this on Monday?? Does nobody obey Nutty the All-Powerful?!?

But Nutty, on Monday I'll be lying on a beach in Hawaii! Oh, wait, that's actually a point in favor...

You know what I just realized we ought to be doing? We should be naming our Voting Discussion Thread, and opening it up, seeing as we've voted to create it.

we need to figure out if Official Warnings, Suspensions, and Bannings are decided in our new 7-day decision making process.

I thought that they were excluded from it already.

We should be naming our Voting Discussion Thread, and opening it up, seeing as we've voted to create it.

"Voting Discussion 1: Dead Horses, Get Yer Dead Horses Here!"

t g, d, r