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.

I dont give a shit, Cindy. The idea of contacting them about this board squicks me so hardcore, that I feel physically ill.

Allyson is me.

Dammit! I had a whole procedure for the warn-suspend-ban thing that was eloquent, well-thought-out, and that allowed for a nice balance of warm, fuzzy discussion, and cold, hard procedure.

Then my computer ate my post. I feel like poor Fenchurch at the beginning of HHGttG.

Anyway, here's a summary of what I said in the missing post.

1. If a person is being trollish, that person should probably be corrected/Doblerized right then-and-there by the offended party. If the troll then continues to be trollish (either by continuing the offending behavior, or ripping into the person who corrected him/her), the offended party would then say, "We need to discuss this. Please meet us in Bureaucracy." The offended party would then go immediately to Bureaucracy and Nilly the offending post(s) and say that they'd invited the person to discuss. That way, we could discuss the behavior, along with what--if anything--was wrong with it.

With any luck, one or two such occurrences would clue in people who were well-meaning, but not familiar with our culture.

2. Assume the person is just a mean-spirited twit, and keeps on offending. At this point, we should probably model the process on the whole "second the motion four times, then vote." Four subsequent referrals to Bureaucracy by four different individuals would automatically generate the dreaded "official warning." By having it automatic and form-letter like, I think it would seem less like a personal attack. The O.W. would be posted in the thread(s) that generated the offending posts, Bureauracy, maybe Press or Beep Me, and would also be sent to the person's profile address.

3. After the O.W., the next referral to Bureaucracy would mean a suspension. By this point, if the person has been Doblerized several times, invited to formally discuss his/her behavior several times, etc., it's clear that he/she has little or no interest in changing his/her behavior.

4. Banning would occur if the person comes back during the two month suspension. After the two month suspension, the person would come back with a semi-clean slate. If they started acting up again, the whole procedure would start from the beginning, except this time, suspension would be replaced with banishment.

I'd like to toss this idea out there for discussion. There may be problems with it that I'm not seeing, but I think that it allows for things to be handled in a reasonably friendly, casual manner while still allowing us reassurance that we do have recourse if a person is making us feel unsafe in our own cyber-home.

but the fact is we can't (or won't) block offenders, because we're afraid of blocking non-offenders.

Cindy, I think the bigger problem is that since most IP addresses are dynamic, blocking them doesn't do much good. Most dial-up (and even most DSL) accounts assign you a new IP address every time you sign on.