Wasn't a decision made?

I think that it was tabled until we found out if anything was really going to happen.

Really? I thought the decision was to discuss it in Natter.

Was it? I may have skipped some. But I don't go into Natter, not having umpteen-bazillion hours to spend reading about toilet training, shoes, and, of course, chocolate.

But that's my issue.

I recall what Burrell recalls.

There was a suggestion to table (in the american sense) the discussion until war actually broke out, but then that was discarded, I believe, and it was decided that Natter's for what's going on in our lives, and if war's going on, we should talk about it in Natter.

I think that's working out. There've been lots of war discussion in Natter and it hasn't made it a one-issue thread or made people unsubscribe.

All right. I still don't want to have to have a discussion with an obvious troll. I'll let you guys decide specific rules. But whatever they are, I think the stompies should have the power to enforce them without asking the community, though of course they should have to disclose.

And I think there should be two appeals.

Anyone who has action taken against them by less than a majority of the stompies should be able to ask for a review by at least a majority of the stompies. If a majority of the stompies think the warning or suspension or banning or whatever is unustiifed, then it is overturned.

If that appeal fails, there can be an appeal to the buffistas as a whole, requiring someone other that the stompie to propose it, and the usual four seconds. In short it should not go the discussion unless at least five people besides the person stomped support the appeal.

And I don't think we ever have or ever will go to formal stuff until inforfmal appeals to better nature have been tried.

And I don't think it is putting the cart before the horse. Because I don't know if "leave it to the stompies" idea will fly, but I know it won't fly if there is not an appeals process people have faith in. I don't want to do the "let's vote on something with an obvious problem and vote on how we solve the problem afterwords" thing again. Leaving it to the stompies only makes sense if there is an appeals process people have confidence in. So any proposal to "leave it to the stompies" has to include this.

But I don't want endless painful discussion before someone is warned or suspended or banned. Leave an appeals process so we can discuss if we have to, but by default let the stompies have authority. And I agree there are some people who should never ever be a stompy with that authority. I'm one of them - not that I was likely to get the offer anyway, but just to make it clear that it is not a dig at anyone.

Lloyd Dobler - John Cusack's character in Say Anything. "You must CHILL!"

From the usage, I always thought "Doblerize" was like a self-censoring version of "bowdlerize"! Its being used transitively is what threw me off the scent.

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

Me too, for the simple and selfish fact that I can't remember when I smiled this broadly at this hour of the morning.