those weird ass compassionate people

Well, at least you didn't add "Conservative". Proud to be a member of the Weird Ass tribe.

For example, once we have it in place, if we warn someone, I think they should get an email. The email would explain that this is an official warning and then the policy on warnings, suspensions and banning should be included so they are fully aware of what we're talking about.

I like this. This should be clear.

We still run into this:

Okay. So, first step. We decide if we're a) happy with having the entire community participate in enforcement, b) want the Stompies to handle it by themselves, or c) create a new group of people to handle the enforcement.

Oh-- and I think the whole community should participate in enforcement-- in the chill and doblerize and hey you are being a PIA way.

It is more the when exactly do we give a warning that I am not sure the whole community can participate in given the need for timliness and our penchant for discussion.

Remember, peeps. No talking in the Press and Beep Me threads.

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).

Good point. And that may be part of the reason that the current system feels broken -- it never had to work before.

What if, before going to the moderator option, we tried to create a policy for handling problem posters?

I'm not wedded to my suggestion. I'd be happy to hear others.

And, yes, all the folk here participate in the decision. Participatory democracy is not a clean, easy process.

Plei, I think you missed one in Press.

My vote for discussion thread name:

Discussion 1: No Big Whoop.

Okay, I promise, my last poke about this:

We have a formal, democratically-decided procedure for discussing and deciding issues of board-wide import. It will do us no good if we don't use it. It is, at this point, well-delineated enough that we can use it. Right? (Am I missing something that's missing?) So can we get the structural issues that we need for that (i.e. the discussion topic) set up so that we can use the procedure, rather than launching off on another discussion?

We can second each other, and move discussions from one topic to another, and it'll be more fun than a barrel of dead monkeys! (Which should not be taken as a thread title suggestion, Monkey Junta.)

Hmmm. No Big Whoop, or Monkey Junta.

"Oh, David's proposing a Whoopee thread in Monkey Junta again !"

"Can we take this discussion over to No Big Whoop? Because the voters will want to see this."

"I have thoughts. But I will go think them in the Monkey Junta. Back soon."

Hmmm. I'm thinking Monkey Junta wins on account of it being about monkeys, but I will survive if we go for the Mike Myers reference.

See! Procedure! Acting out the voting will! Hurray!