I would like to remind people that the first rule of backchannel is don't mention backchannel.

I would like to Amen this. Because frankly, if I post something somewhere that is not here, and it's not publicly available, I'm not going to be tolerantly amused if it suddenly appears in a public forum.

I equate it with the netiquette of not posting private e-mail.

But, she apparently wants to stay. I have seen posts from her that seemed Warning-worthy, but never til later, I just don't necessarily think this latest thing is.

I don't think this incident is either. In all honesty, I totally see Victor's point.

What I am curious about and would like to know is what happens when the pattern of behavior is at the low-level-radioactive irritant?

What I don't like is the community response and frustration. She's easy to skim, but all of the responses are not because they are made by people I like and respect.

See for me Schmoker was an easy one. And I wasn't offended by him. But it was the community response to him that made it difficult for me.

it's easier to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you" and work it out than to ignore or be snippy and let resentment grow.

Yes, this. God knows I've apologized while rolling my eyes and holding my nose often enough. It's just something One Does. It's Universal Social Glue.

And I'll stop with the caps now.

I think the obvious solution to this is MARCIE. ASAP.

(Me? Help to code? Hrm... I do PHP, but honestly I'd be embarrassed if I had to have other people (not to mention the One And Only ita) read my code. I'll have to think whether I offer myself formally to code it).

(Sorry, long day. Geeked out).

okay folks, here we go again. I'm going to provide a few things I've noticed, and let you do your own math.

1) Zoe Ann gets disability payments 2) She alternates between lucidity and nonsense 3) She often overreacts. 4) She has mentioned being in the hospital 5) She has mentioned taking psychiatric drugs.

{Having succeeded in rolling over Zoe Ann's alter ego makes it back into the living room, where the computer is still on...}

post 8305 in Angel 2

I'm afraid I don't have a handy solution on how to deal with her, except to ignore her or at least ignore her occasional nastiness. Also, in the Unamerican thread linked above, she did apologize.

But we don't have MARCIE Paul. Yes it's a solution. But why is the telling of a patron who persists in trying to irritate (and let me tell you, this post Zoe Ann "Angel 2: No Time for Losers" Apr 11, 2003 3:23:08 pm EDT is definitely being read as aggressive by me) that the behavior is unacceptable, in an official capacity not okay?

Why did we warn Schmoker who received the same responses as Zoe, but we won't warn her?

When people say something about her behavior, they don't get any response in the same way that people complained about Schmoker.

Plus, it's a WARNING. I'm not saying ban her.

What I am curious about and would like to know is what happens when the pattern of behavior is at the low-level-radioactive irritant?

Once MARCIE is up and running - and I'd help if I could, but alas coding is not a skill I have - I don't think this is likely to be a problem, really. On a more philosophical level, I'd say that irritating should not be a warnable offense. (I'd also say that for what it's worth, I'm viewing the replies to her by people who are very clearly irritated by her as baiting her as well. I'm good at DNFTEC, though, and I do understand that other people are more easily frustrated/distracted than I am.)

My apologies for mentioning the dreaded backchannel. I used no names. I felt it a telling barometer of the atmosphere, though.

Oh, crap, I've gone into into hyper-formal tone. Excuse me a moment.

Also I posted the request here and noted the request in Angel because I do think it's important to discuss it and not just backchannel.

Connie I appreciate the fact that you side with the underdog, the pariah. I think it shows that you are a kind and generous human being who believes strongly in justice and fairness. I wanted to let you know that, becuase it is something I admire about you.

But I disagree about what a warning means. I think when a person has lost so many advocates, they need to be made aware of it, officially. Again, I'm not asking for a ban, or for her to be placed in the stocks. I'm asking for an official warning that she is upsetting, frustrating and making people angry. That is all.

smonster, I think if she wants to claim some kind of mental/psychological disability in her defense, (a) she has to do it herself, and (b) she should recuse herself from places where she can't handle herself with coherence and/or politeness.

Also, in the Unamerican thread linked above, she did apologize.

Before going on to get rude again, immediately.

Clearly, I'm at least somewhat of the same mind as Kat on this: I want to create a precedent that cumulative tiny offenses, when not mitigated by some kind of social grooming behavior despite the offense being pointed out by peers, should be tolerated no more than one big offense. The whole idea of warning was to give a head-check to the warnee, to say "Look, dude, you've gone too far. Please stop it."

It's just that, many posters having tried to say the above as individuals, aren't getting a response; maybe it's time that the collective say it.

Does this argument have merit? Other thoughts?