A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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?)
What if, before going to the moderator option, we tried to create a policy for handling problem posters?
We have a policy, yes? Once, warn. Twice, suspend. Three times, ban. What we have a problem with is the details of enforcement.
