My opinions on bitterchick's questions:
What behavior do we consider deserving of a warning?
The obvious ones: intentional privacy violations, threats to other posters, crimes (e.g., scamming us out of money) against the board. Actually, those are probably all more ban-immedaitely than warn, but YKWIM.
The less-obvious judgment calls: Harassment of other posters. I don't want this to include simple one-time namecalling in a heated discussion -- it would have to be something that was clearly meant to offend and done with a (relatively) cool head.
Also, repeated nose-thumbing at our spoiler and natter-deletion policies, defined as X offenses over Y amount of time. On this one, I'd be inclined to let a lot slide -- it's more to make sure people are aware when they have a problem.
What constitutes a warning?
I would say a post in the relevant thread bearing a Stompy logo, copied into an email. This should include in invitation to talk about it in bureaucracy.
How do we notify party of said warning?
By email and in the thread where the offense was committed.
How much time do we give a warned poster before moving onto the suspension phase?
Until their next offense, I thought. I'm not clear what this question means.
How do we handle a poster that has been warned but feels it unfair or unjustified? Is there an appeals procedure?
I think there should be one, yes -- maybe the warned poster could discuss it in bureaucracy, and there could be a vote on it? I worry this could be divisive, so perhaps a closed-door hearing might be appropriate in some cases.
Oh yeah, fourthly and fifthly (sounding more and more like whatshisname from Twelfth Night):
- Like I said before, I would rather we had no suspension/banning procedure than the one we have, or more specifically, I wish we had not used our suspension procedure in this case. Mieskie as Mieskie never bothered me at all, ironically.
- There is a way to exclude people without using IPs -- you could do it with cookies. It's not something you couldn't get around, but it would take out the less tech-minded of trolls.
Let's waste time with a lively debate.
I like this.
I dislike Big Whoop and Dead Horse because I'd rather not have a thread title that makes fun of the thread itself, if it's supposed to be a place where our big decisions as a community are made. But that may be my issues talking.
Edited: Yeah, I know the "waste time" quote is also self-depreciating, but it feels different somehow. Plus, it makes it clear what we're doing within the thread, which Big Whoop doesn't.
How about Town Hall?
BGA (like SGA), Buffista Government Association
a post in the relevant thread bearing a Stompy logo
This was discussed a while ago. It would need a change to board code so that stompies were able to post images, or that a post so tagged had a Stompy Seal on it somewhere.
I think it would have quite a visual impact, as this place is generally sparse-looking and low on images. (Which is a Good Thing, of course).
Because I just realized that people may not be familiar - sorry, parochial American moment - there is a position in the United States Congress called the "whip." I think it's the number two position in the party, and the whip is the person responsible for getting Congresscritters to line up behind the party for a vote. Which is why the pun.
I'd rather not have a thread title that makes fun of the thread itself
I don't see Big Whoop as making fun of the thread so much as saying that we don't take ourselves too seriously. I think Dead Horse, OTOH, makes fun of the thread.
This was discussed a while ago. It would need a change to board code so that stompies were able to post images, or that a post so tagged had a Stompy Seal on it somewhere.
I know -- I thought it was a cool idea then, and wasn't sure if it had been dismissed in BBaBB or what.
