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.

We're still talking about Zoe.

Look---she's become a troll. She's a low level energy creature but that's still a troll.

I'm sorry that some people get freaked out when there's a request for a warning, but sometimes warnings are necessary.

There shouldn't be this feeling of shame when it comes to requesting that a warning be issued.

Frankly, I held off on making an official request that Zoe be warned because I felt that I was damned anyway I did it.

Damned if I emailed privately because that would be get me labelled for using backchanneled.

Damned for asking publicing because I should have made my request in private.

Damned for asking at all because I "she isn't really doing anything."

Except she IS. She's making people uncomfortable. I come into a thread too late and see people so pissed off they act out of character. Not just frustrated because she mixes up the actor and the character But upset and angry over things she's said about nationality or gender or politics or religion.

She made a joke about Christianity that Steph found offensive. I don't remember Zoe apologizing AT ALL for it.

I thought that kind of stuff wasn't allowed here. I thought that we didn't allow people to make insults about other people's religions or races or sexual orientations.

People sit around and don't say anything because everything she does is "too little" or they don't think it's enough for a complaint.

OR when they finally HAVE had enough and do complain then there are chastisments of "you shouldn't, you aren't being fair to her."

There is no way that I believe that Zoe is so naive or whatever that she doesn't actually know that when someone makes a post about sticking a fork in their eye after reading about a spoiler that it's a joke. That when everyone else on the posting board treats it like a joke that it is a joke.

Maybe, maybe if Zoe had trouble speaking English I might believe that, but I don't think any of the Buffistas who aren't native English speakers would have a problem understanding the context of the joke.

I think that Zoe's posts made about about that incident were deliberatly made to provoke some kind of reaction.

I've kept my mouth shut for a very long time about her. I've promised myself that I wouldn't respond to her. And from the post about good=happy and evil=sad until the question about the use of quotes I haven't. Not in one single thread.

My non response to Zoe did not mean that I wasn't annoyed and upset and frustrated by what she was saying and doing. It just meant that I was waiting for some kind of inicident to occur that I felt would be big enough so that when I could make a complaint these kinds of accusations of "unfair" wouldn't be levelled against me for requesting a warning.

I was waiting for some kind of incident to occur that I felt would be big enough so that when I could make a complaint these kinds of accusations of "unfair" wouldn't be levelled against me for requesting a warning.

I understand what you mean, askye, and I've been thinking along similar lines, in some parts. One wants a "perfect case", a clear example that everyone agrees deserves a warning. In the absence of a "perfect case" -- although Micole suggests there are at least two of those already -- I feel that I have to look at the results of her behavior, and the way it can occasionally cause ugliness on the threads, and coming back to the same conclusion as you.

I read the recent dialogue, about the quotes, and I thought the "Probably" response was meant to be a joke - not the best of them, fine, but meant to be a joke, anyway. Unfortunately, she deleted one of her replies, but it did seem that after that she was trying to get back into the general flow of the conversation.

And was ignored, fairly pointedly, until she felt compelled to make a post to try to get some attention. She did, however, respond to the original question, which nobody seems to have noticed.

On the subject of warnings, well, if it's an "Official" warning, that's a bit different than just saying, "You're pissing people off," it's saying "You're pissing people off, and if you don't chill we'll have to do something about it." Bound to put some types of people on the defensive, particularly when it's threatened, but not yet implemented.

well, if it's an "Official" warning, that's a bit different than just saying, "You're pissing people off," it's saying "You're pissing people off, and if you don't chill we'll have to do something about it." Bound to put some types of people on the defensive, particularly when it's threatened, but not yet implemented.

That's why I think calling it a notice, rather than a warning, would be of the good. It makes it clear that we aren't breaking out the pitchforks and torches, but that the community is being disrupted and a significant portion of the community wants that to change.