I can't believe how much time you guys take talking about this kind of stuff.

My post about the head injury was designed to make her leave, yo. I wanted her to cry, feel stupid, and leave. Forever. And then, I would have been a great big meanie, but really, the Angel thread would be a better place.

Here's the thing (as I see it), Fay. Sure, some posters who have been here longer may seem to get away with more - hell, they probably do get away with more - but they've earned that. They earned it by having a body of posts behind them - by being funny and sympathetic and kind - by contributing time and money and expertise - by helping to build this board and this community. If a random person walked up to you at a party and called you a FUCKO, would you be offended? Or think them socially maladjusted? I would. If, however, a person I've 'known' for ages came up and did the same it's okay, because it's Rio. The same way that, say, ita and Kat can playfully insult each other and it's okay, but if I tried to insult Kat in the same way it would be terribly rude. Because I have not built up that kind of relationship with Kat. And if I did do it, and people reacted negatively, I have no one to blame but myself. And if I want to get along with people here I'd have to modify my behaviour.

As for Zoe... I agree that if mental illness or medication is to be an excuse or a reason for her posting then she needs to be the one to bring it up. But, thing is, we have lots of people on this board who are medicated and who are ill, and they still manage to post in a polite fashion.

And I never thought that Allyson was actually asking about Zoe's mental health, it was quite clear to me that she was deliberately striking out because Zoe's posts were offensive and hurtful.

if the *proposed* solution is that 25% of the posters (or more) should just dump her into MARCIE, we have a problematic poster on our hands.

Agreed. A high percentage of Marciers is a sign that the poster needs to rethink what he/she is posting that is so Marcieable.

Actually, I was thinking about this on the way home. The standard Doblerize phrase in such situations is "Do not feed the energy creature", but I got to wondering. If Zoe is a low-level "energy creature" -- i.e. a troll -- then we shouldn't tolerate her at all. If she's not -- I tend to think she's probably not -- then DNFTEC doesn't apply, and everyone has both right and duty not to ignore her, not to let it go in hopes of everything blowing over. Because, clearly, that way lies tension and sudden blow-ups and isn't working. If someone is a part of the [self-selecting] community, part of the responsibility of belonging is, you know, belonging. Caring how the other members feel. Trying not to hurt their feelings, and trying to maintain that sense of community. That's a responsibility for the person who gives offense -- to apologize honestly -- and for the person who is offended -- to accept the apology and be willing to move on.

Zoe, if you're reading, this is an invitation to you to describe your sense of whether and how you feel part of the community. Do the above 30 posts make you think? Make you angry and defensive? Here's the place to talk it out, in truly wordy Buffista fashion. And I think the whole conversation would be more profitable and less speculative if the person being debated were willing to represent herself in this matter.

I think the whole board might be better served if warnings were not seen as THE END OF THE WORLD

You know, I think that's true, after some thought. Because, if warning is what we originally said it is, i.e. a headcheck to someone who had crossed the line, then it's a conciliatory gesture, a formal communal way to say "Please come back over the line and join us in our monkey goofy love." As opposed to it being necessarily a prelude to suspension. It has been heretofore, but it's only been tried out on one person, and that was, I think you'll agree, sort of an extreme case.

Lately, I've been ignoring the Bureauracy thread because, truth be told, I don't have strong feelings on how things should be run. If others do, great. And, I figured if I ever did get strong feelings about something, I could pop over and say my peace. So, here I am.

I don't know what Zoe's deal is in her posts. I don't know if she's deliberately provoking people or if she has special circumstances that affects her communication skills. I do think her interactions on this board have caused people to have a rather short fuse with her, and I agree with those who have said that some posts to her lately have been provocative (and not in the fun way).

Personally, I've used my internal Marcie with her for a while. Whenever I see her name, I skip the post.

I'm not sure why we're looking for some kind of consensus or majority voice on having a Stompy speak with her (backchannel) about the concerns of the community. No one is asking for her to be banned, just spoken with. Of course, she could read all the concerns here, too, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Something a bit more personal and private would be good.

If Zoe has mental problems, that doesn't excuse her. What do we say in the Site Etiquette section -- "Be polite, unless you have a mental problem; in that case, you can't help what you say, so you can be as rude as you like,"? No. Hell no.

A mental problem might explain her behavior, but it doesn't excuse it. If she's allowed to be rude because of some mental illness, then everyone should be allowed to be rude. And our site etiquette clearly says that being rude ain't cool and could lead to a warning/suspension/banning.

on having a Stompy speak with her (backchannel)

It was my understanding that people were asking for an Official Stompy Warning, which is not backchannel (though it is repeated in an email).

I think the whole board might be better served if warnings were not seen as THE END OF THE WORLD so that they could be meted out when deemed appropriate without a 2000 post debate on the fate of the Buffistas.

Thank you.

A warning is not a punishment, nor is it a strike against one. A warning simply serves to tell someone that something is going wrong. A properly worded warning would also tell this person what his or her options are. The goal of a warning should be that of letting a person know that his or her behavior is not considered acceptable because x, y, and z. If that person's behavior after the warning show that there is no desire to change, that's when we put up our hair in the ponytail of stern righteousness and move to protect the community.

Basically, a giant X-post. I like the idea that an initial warning should be an invitation to step back over the line.

on having a Stompy speak with her (backchannel)

It was my understanding that people were asking for an Official Stompy Warning, which is not backchannel (though it is repeated in an email).

Ah, okay, I was a bit confused.

I think the whole board might be better served if warnings were not seen as THE END OF THE WORLD so that they could be meted out when deemed appropriate without a 2000 post debate on the fate of the Buffistas.

I agree with this. And maybe that's where my above confusion came from. I don't see official warnings as horrible horrible things, but rather a chance to officially voice concerns and try to rectify behavior.

Agreeing wholeheartedly with Anne, over here. Also listening to Ewan sing "Come What May," so I'm not nearly as on edge as I usually am when Zoe is the topic of discussion.

I don't usually interact with Zoe when she posts, because she makes me grind my teeth and mutter. When she's at all coherent, it's usually because she's being rude, and I have yet to see her acknowlege the numerous posters who have asked her to alter her behavior.

I think an official notice from the "admin" account (calling it a warning seems to worry people-- does "notice" work better?) telling her that a large portion of the community has a serious, long-running problem with her behavior, and why. Then, see if things change, and move from there.

Notice is nicer and also more apt, I think.