"Oh, let's just warn her and then everything will be fine" and ignoring the possibility that it WON'T be.

Well, you're right. It might not.

Every posting board is not right for every person.

Someone asked for a Stompy to please warn her about her behaviour. And then debate started over whether or not Zoe's behaviour warranted a warning.

So, can ANYONE call out the Stompies? Honestly, I'm curious as to the procedure. Could (for example) Zoe call them out on, uh, whoever, for attacking and insulting her and trying to get her to leave the forum?

How many people does it take to call out the Stompies?

If it ain't codified, then it's just wanking.

I have no idea if a warning has been issued.

Not to my knowledge, and I would seriously doubt it.

We aren't trying to VOTE on the issue, we're just being Buffistas and airing our greivences and opinions and thoughts.

Nope, and, as I said above, I don't think that a vote is appropriate at this level.

Well, you're right. It might not.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Every posting board is not right for every person.

Nope.

If it ain't codified, then it's just wanking.

Could you elaborate? Wanking as in never-going-to-bear-fruit, or wanking as in an ineffective warning?

Of course there is no vote. I helped make these procedures, I know how they work.

I was one of the few back on WX , before we had the rules, saying "well what are we going to do if we have a problem poster, we need to think about that.."

I will say this again.

I think Zoe posts much of what she does in a deliberatly provactive way trying to get any type of attention and to stir up trouble.

Which is why I have no problem asking for her to be warned.

Wanking as in never-going-to-bear-fruit, or wanking as in an ineffective warning?

It was meant more as "guessing." So, if there's no set rules for how many people it takes to call out the Stompies, it's just going to be subject to each individual person's interpretations, and some Stompies could spend all day issuing warnings, while others go MONTHS without issuing one.

I'm exagerating for effect, of course, but you get what I'm saying.

I think Zoe posts much of what she does in a deliberatly provactive way trying to get any type of attention and to stir up trouble.

Which is why I have no problem asking for her to be warned.

I have my own opinions as to why she does it, which may or may not coincide. Aw, hell, they do, at least partially. I don't think that that is all the time, I think that there's more to it than that, but there always is. And it may be enough, if it continues, to warrant the big B, but if we're not prepared to enact that, without kidding ourselves, then this whole thing is pointless.

And if it is, then go in with guns blazin'.

We warn (or give notice) in hopes that people will be reasonable and modify their behaviour (or leave) in order to comply with community standards. If they don't, that's when the process continues. I would hope that most people would be reasonable.

Gandalfe, I got caught up in trying to figure out where you were going with the technical aspects of your posts (the voting stuff) that I missed some things.

I understand fully what would happen if Zoe doesn't heed the warning and she had to be warned again.

I am certian that everyone who has said they want her warned knows what would happen.

I want you to understand that I don't take this situation lightly at all.

Personally, I think it is helpful to use the actual word, "ban." Kind of like I say "died" instead of "passed away." Euphemisms are for those who can't handle the truth. George Carlin is right.

Which is my own issue - everyone has been talking around it, saying "We know what will happen," or "We hope everything will turn out right." I'm fairly forthright when it comes to this stuff.

Plus, well, this. So I'm a bit out of sorts today.