It was in the post where I mentioned it Jon.

D'ohh!

OK, what name would Artie know you by? Cindy or something else?

I think we need to make the new thread anyway, AND continue to toss this other stuff around in here.

Yes, Jesse. I agree.

Jon, he'd know me by Xanderella. I just sent an introduction email (cc'd to the board's webmistress (non-tech issues), Phoenix).

Here's the text of it:

Hi Artie and Phoenix,

I was hoping you could help out a fellow fan board. At another board I frequent, we've had a problem with a suspended member coming back and posting under a new name, a lot like Geo and Jono did at the Beta.

Some of us have suggested blocking this problem poster's IP number. The technology-inclined folks over there are concerned that (this is hypothetical) if any innocent parties happen to share that IP number of anyone we want to block, then an innocent person could be blocked in the process, which would not be so great.

I was telling them that on the Beta, drlloyd11 and I showed the same IP numbers in our post headers, but that when you blocked him (at least I've been given to understand that you did), fortunately, I was not blocked.

I have no knack for the technical, so this email is just an introduction. I've pointed one of the board programmers in Artie's direction, hoping maybe you'd have a helpful tip for him. I'd appreciate it if you could help him, his name is Jon.

Thanks,

Cindy/Xanderella

Ugh. That makes me feel squicky.

Please, Cindy, keep Phoenix and Artie away. Please.

Yes, Jesse. I agree.

Yeah, so do I - I just wanted to get the infrastructure for moving it to formal discussion set up before we got sidetracked.

Is Mr. Pointy up anywhere? I've forgotten where it went. Though I suppose we could go with "I Guess We Should Have Voted" per ita's suggestion. (Assuming that you meant that quote and not the capitalism thingie.)

Yeah, I don't think we're at the proposal stage yet.

Thinking out loud:

I could see making official stompy warnings a little easier, but allowing more of them before it came to suspension. If two warnings were allowed before things went to a next stage, the stompies might feel a little freer to issue them (and maybe we'd want a two-stompy agreement so that one person didn't feel so isolated in taking action.) A second warning could take the form of "we've asked you about this before - you're not listening. Please hie yourself to bureaucracy to discuss the matter before further action is needed." Then if the poster either refused to discuss or was still recalcitrant in the discussion, suspension would be the next step.

Okay, I'll bite. I propose that we discuss an official policy regarding problem posters. Specifically:

• What behavior do we consider deserving of a warning?

• What constitutes a warning?

• How do we notify party of said warning?

• How much time do we give a warned poster before moving onto the suspension phase?

• How do we handle a poster that has been warned but feels it unfair or unjustified? Is there an appeals procedure?

Allyson,

I didn't mention the board or the fandom. You said you wanted TWoP moderation here, but the fact is we can't (or won't) block offenders, because we're afraid of blocking non-offenders. Maybe it's possible to block one and not the other.