Undoubtedly I've pissed off Jon (and others) with my anti-preferential voting rant.

For the record -- naaaah. I was annoyed only insomuch as I get annoyed whenever someone doesn't see things the-only-true-way. There was misunderstanding on both sides. But we talked it out, I think we understood each other's point of view, and we moved on.

I was annoyed only insomuch as I get annoyed whenever someone doesn't see things the-only-true-way.

Jon and I are one here. I was having a true Beatles moment with "Try to see it my way...."

But we talked it out, I think we understood each other's point of view, and we moved on.

sniff sniff. I'm glad. I was worried you were mad at me.

I'm such a girl.

But when it's something truly hateful or offensive? How do you let that go by?

I don't particularly well myself. Generally, though, I think Zoe is more obnoxious than H & O.

Luckily I've been several hundred posts behind when I've been particularly bothered by posts.

I also think that we can do what I did, trepidation causing as it is. I asked. People discuss.

Yeah but no one wanted to be the mean one that said she should be warned, when people have been pissed off to the point of out-of-characterness for quite a while now. I think a good self-enforcing system would have warned her already.

Ooh, I know - what if we add an option to flag a post (any post) as offensive, for a Stompy to review, and then if your number of offensive posts is higher than x, you automatically get warned by a Stompy? Then it's less like a witch-hunt and more of a self-regulating system.

[ETA context]

sniff sniff. I'm glad. I was worried you were mad at me.

awwww. {{Kat}} I get caught up in the moment, but I'm always able to step back and remember that it's just a dumb ol' message board.

t deletia

Deadwood being thrown on the bonfire...

Exactly - people shouldn't have to ask (or be afraid to ask) for the rules to be enforced. The rules should be self-enforcing. Of course that means endless discussion and voting, Buffista-style. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (See thread title.)

You're missing the point entirely.

Rules are self enforcing. I don't get that. If everyone agrees to follow the rules then the people enforce the rules by following them.

But, right now, we have someone who isnt' following our guidelines of etiquitte.

Zoe recently upset a few people by making a joke about their religon, when told that her joke was found offensive, she made another pretty mean spirited joke about the same religion. The discussion turned into something entirely, something besides the fact that at least one person was seriously upset at Zoe for what she posted. And Zoe DID NOT apologize, even though she was asked to.

Zoe has been asked on more than one occasion by more than one poster to be more thoughtful about what she posts, to put some more thought into it, to try and be more clear in what she says. And Zoe hasn't paid attention. This is before the reponses to Zoe started getting rather curt.

Someone upthread wanted to know why Allyson didn't get warned for what she said about Zoe's mental health. Allyson backed off once other posters told her she'd gone too far. She listened to other posters, there was no need to ask admins to intervene.

Zoe, hasn't responded to any requests to make it easier for us to understand her, possibly enjoy her posts, or anything.

what if we add an option to flag a post (any post) as offensive, for a Stompy to review, and then if your number of offensive posts is higher than x, you automatically get warned by a Stompy? Then it's less like a witch-hunt and more of a self-regulating system.

A system similiar to this was discussed and decided against.

Zoe, hasn't responded to any requests to make it easier for us to understand her, possibly enjoy her posts, or anything.

Right. And either she won't because she enjoys causing trouble or she can't because something is amiss.

It can be irritating, but I can't see what good a warning would do in either case.