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

I thought that they were excluded from it already.

Huh - I assumed they were included. We're still using consensus as a way to decide whether to warn someone?

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

Snerk. I was thinking "The Isolation Room" but that wasn't funny, alas.

The problem that I have with the moderator suggestion (aside from what others have already mentioned) is that I feel it’s somewhat premature. We had one problem poster and we handled it in a less than smooth fashion. So, okay, Method A didn’t work. But, with the moderating proposal, I feel like we just skipped to Method E without even considering Methods B, C or D.

Part of why I think the m/S/A situation was so difficult is that it was the first one. There was no existing policy for us to refer to when dealing with him. We had to feel our way through it. In retrospect, I know there are things I wish we’d done differently (like, making mieskie aware of this thread and that he was being discussed).

What if, before going to the moderator option, we tried to create a policy for handling problem posters? I’m not saying it’s going to be the solution but I feel like we need to make the effort before we start talking about empowering posters to be watchdogs.

"Voting Discussion 1: Court is now in session."
"Voting Discussion 1: Deathmatch '03"

(Bitterchick, I hear what you're saying. What do you think B, C, and D are?)