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.

I have been often baffled by Zoe's posts, sometimes gained a strange sort of insight from them (I can almost understand what she means sometimes, or at least I think I can), but unfortunately, the negative outweighs the positive in her case, I think. I'm not sure whether or not she means to do it, but she doesn't seem to be able to play nice. So she should definitely be warned and if she continues on this path, she should be banned. It's too bad, because I actually have enjoyed some of her posts [, but it's too disruptive and frustrating for far too many people who have given her more than enough chances. They really have - people have been politely asking, "What do you mean by that" for MONTHS.]

ETA {{{{{{gandalfe}}}}}}}

[Edited again to finish my thought.]

If you go back and look at who has made complaints: me, Kat, Elena, Allyson, Steph, etc--we aren't Stompies.

The etc. is also an eclectic group including people like PMM, Nutty, Jessica, Holli, Jilli. And, intriguingly this is a group of people who don't always agree on anything. Which is not to say that I don't admire people on that list, just that we don't often see eye to eye. Which is my roundabout way of saying that the list is diverse enough to indicate a problem.

I will speak for myself. I'm not caring if she's banned or not. But what I want is a Community Level response. If someone wants to call the Stompies on me, okay. Fine. And if it happened it would cause some soul searching about my behavior and, I hope, a change.

Yes, people are rude to Zoe. But you know what, when Allyson was rude, people said "That's wrong," her knuckles got smacked, she apologized and explained and that was that. Allyson took some responsibility for her actions and how they affected not just the poster but the community.

Granted, Allyson also has a surplus of social capital which allows her to do the outrageous and be mostly forgiven. But she has the social capital because she hasn't pissed off, offended or made people frustrated and angry.

Undoubtedly I've pissed off Jon (and others) with my anti-preferential voting rant. But I care enough that I'm thinking about how to repair the relationship. That's what community members do.

Also, you know what, we aren't a government, a democracy, a judicial system or a sovereign nation. We are a private entity, a group of people who come together for X, Y, Z. We needn't tolerate behavior which many in the collective find annoying, strange and off putting.