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.

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.

I do think overlooking may be putting people even more on edge. I think, maybe I'm only speaking for me, but that when I see a post that's either rude, or totally disregarding the discussion, I'm wanting someone to tell the poster to stop. I'm chicken, and I don't because I'm trying to follow the DNFTEC (though I'm not sure I always have). But then, when it goes by uncommented on and then the next incoherent post comes, my fuse is a little shorter.

Did that make sense?

Totally. Exact same thing with me, except I'm usually so far behind that I *can't* say anything, because by the time I get to the end of the thread it's 300 posts later and saying something would be silly.

Well, yeah. There's that too.