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.

And was ignored, fairly pointedly, until she felt compelled to make a post to try to get some attention.

Thing is, she does that. She'll post the same thing over and over until she gets a response. And that response is usually negative, because people used up all their polite ignoring the first few posts.

I've thought about what Nutty said, that if you self-select to be part of a community, then you try to be a part of that community. And I don't see her doing that.

Granted, that doesn't mean hold hands and sing Kumbayah. That doesn't mean getting to know everyone personally. That DOES mean adhering to the community standards. And she doesn't.

She's disruptive. If a number of people are calling for an ENUF filter because of her, that indicates that she's disruptive. And that necessitates an *official* warning, IMO.

it's saying "You're pissing people off, and if you don't chill we'll have to do something about it."

And IMO, this is exactly what needs to be said.

Individual community members repeatedly saying "please tone down the rudeness" has had zero effect. It's time for Stomping.

She did, however, respond to the original question, which nobody seems to have noticed.

She responded to the original question after it was asked three more times by three separate people.

a significant portion of the community

Well, unless we put them to vote, it's really a significant portion of the Stompies. Just to be clear. Is this the type of thing we want to put to a vote? I'd doubt it, but we need to be specific.

Also, we would need to point to specific posts that are issues, including copies of the relevant portions - so that we have proof, and they can't just delete them.