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?

Smonster, I think those are explanations, but not necessarily excuses. I may not hold someone being treated for schizophrenia responsible for their actions, but that doesn't mean that I'll be passive if they have a delusional violent outburst either.

I also do not find the apology in the Unamerican Thread at all sincere, and it's retracted in the next sentence by Zoe continuing to argue her position.

I do believe the behavior in Unamerican warrants a warning.

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.

Just FYI, I just emailed Zoe a link to the beginning of this conversation.

I'm with Nutty. Except that I find neither the responses in Unamerican that Jesse linked to, nor the continued "Gay is ICKY" argument, minor offenses.

I was wondering if we needed to tell Zoe to come here to speak in her own defense; I'm glad smonster and Jesse notified her.

I agree with smonster's assessment of Zoe. Z has made some interesting and intelligent posts from time to time. There are others in which I honestly can't make heads or tails of what's being said. I also tend to read her reactions to questioning to be highly defensive. There's also something disquieting about the rigor with which she defends certain ideas or views. Remember the whole discussion about whether or not someone who was not "good" could be truly happy.

I do think a warning of some kind is needed, but perhaps not a BIG STOMPY "OR ELSE" kind of warning. Whatever is going on with Zoe, she clearly has trouble playing well with others. Sometimes, she's okay, and when she's okay, she's actually rather pleasant.

That said, there are times when her behavior can be very disruptive to the community as a whole, and can spark less-than-pleasant behavior in others. That situation must be dealt with, but I'm at a loss as to the how aspect of it.