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.

See, and I thought the Stompies decided, really, whether to warn someone. I mean we can ask all we want, but it is the stompy that types it up.

So obviously we don't really know what we were doing.

I also thought the warning, banning stuff was excluded from the vote because of the poential for public flogging and the time issues.

We have a policy, yes? Once, warn. Twice, suspend. Three times, ban. What we have a problem with is the details of enforcement.

Yes. This.

We have a policy, yes? Once, warn. Twice, suspend. Three times, ban. What we have a problem with is the details of enforcement.

Yes. We have a policy that no one feels empowered to enforce, is what it seems to me is the problem.