I'll back lightbulbs, just for the innuendo.

I don’t post much, in part because I am hesitant to enter into and possibly disturb the community you have here. It is, as you know, generally a very nice place and always a very funny place, and I think you’re quite justified in being protective of it. I think I have been lurking long enough (several months, actually) to have internalized many of the rules. For example, the other day I found myself thinking, with some annoyance, “someone’s nattering in COMM.” I have read the FAQ and the Site Etiquette. While the policies are in there, I think it would be helpful to have, spelled out in an obvious place, a “geopolitical ramifications of being mean” section to which you could point offenders with a link. Perhaps it could just be a condensed version of the Etiquette unacceptable behaviors, along with the banning policy. This may be a part of developing a more codified “how to kill a troll” policy, as you’re discussing.

And I propose Discussion: Shout about it, when you’ve got to choose (Okay, I’m old. Simon and Garfunkel old.)

Love your suggestion, Ginger.

While the policies are in there, I think it would be helpful to have, spelled out in an obvious place, a “geopolitical ramifications of being mean” section to which you could point offenders with a link.

This is a good idea. I forgot to include in my previous epic-sized post, that I also don't think pulling an offender into Bureaucracy will be too effective. I've noticed in the other threads that people have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon for chastisement purposes and this can worsen a situation rather than ameliorating it. Pulling the offender into this thread only sets the stage for more of that kind of thing.

I support a "geopolitical ramifications of being mean" document.

I still think When Buffistas Attack needs to be used as a thread title somewhere, where it's not implying divisiveness.

For the next F2F?

No big whoop makes me think "Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips." For some reason, whip appeal does not.

From this morning:

OK, so I just googled myself, and have a request: Can my last name come out of the FAQ? Thx.

Done, Jesse.

This is a little tiny hijack.

Having just sucked the last bit of this thread, and therefore getting a look at the thread header, I'd like to suggest we update the Stompies list and take John off.

ION, I really like Anne's proposal.

While the policies are in there, I think it would be helpful to have, spelled out in an obvious place, a "geopolitical ramifications of being mean" section to which you could point offenders with a link. Perhaps it could just be a condensed version of the Etiquette unacceptable behaviors, along with the banning policy. This may be a part of developing a more codified "how to kill a troll" policy, as you’re discussing.

I like this idea very much, Ginger. (But I love that title more! Bartender!Xander!)

I also like the stamp. (I'm apparently in a very good mood tonight. That's what having slash written about you will do!) But maybe it could have some (subdued) color, in the final version? I'm absolutely not advocating silliness; but like other people I'd like it to immediately and obviously stick out from the rest of the page just slightly more? Perhaps yellow? Which is already in our design scheme (see sidebars) and so could be pulled off without being garish, but has greater contrast to the black text (of ordinary posts) than the blood-red does, and is complementary to the blue of the username hyperlinks. Maybe?

Not to derail the conversation, but do you think now would be the time to make a decision on having a war thread? You know, now that we are, actually, at war?

Wasn't a decision made?