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.

t deletia

"Toss it in -- and help yourself to a marshmallow. History is being cruel to you today." ~ Kathleen Dexter, The Fifth Life of the Catwoman.

When other community members feel like they're asking for an enforcement of the etiquette, well, we have a problem.

Might be partially because it doesn't happen often. Which, when you think about it, ISN'T a problem.

Might be partially because it doesn't happen often.

I disagree. Speaking from my experience, I was all squirmy about asking because it is a direct opposition to the community wide DNFTEC plan and because I feel like it marks me a not nice person. Which, oddly, is not something I relish.

Yeah, you know, I was getting pretty annoyed with Schmoker, but I didn't read Bureaucracy, so I didn't know he got banned. But he too had his moments. I guess that's why we have to have so much discussion, because if ALL someone's posts were offensive, it'd be easy to say "ban 'em".

So it sounded like we have a procedure for warning and banning, but what about initiating the process? Maybe if x number of people vote in Bureaucracy to do it? Or x%? There has to be a way of doing it that won't be easy to corrupt or otherwise use unfairly. Maybe if the number of objectionable posts goes above x?

I can't tell you the trepidation I felt when I asked if anyone else thought that mieskye and Schmoker were the same person.

And, really, the standards exist, they get pointed out, they get ignored, there's a warning.

I felt uncomfortable, not because it doesn't happen often, but because I was afraid that my request for an enforement of etiquette would be seen as a breach of etiquette.

That is a problem.