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.

Given that, how do we resolve and decide to do something?

You know what... just make me the benevolent dictator/moderator and I'll do it!

Yeah, this is what Gandalfe was saying. I wonder if victor and jengod gave up Stomping because they didn't want to have to make the decision, "I'm going to send the official warning. It's my call that enough of us agree." (I always wondered why they resigned, because the white-fonting duties of Stomping didn't seem high pressure.)

I would like to remind people that the first rule of backchannel is don't mention backchannel. That goes for people's LJ's, esp. as many of them are group protected posts.

I think if you want a LiveJournal post to be private, you should mark it that way. The Ferrett writes LJ entries about friends that piss him off, and means them to be public. The friends he's talking about reply to him there. Marie of Roumania gets drunk and posts pictures of herself sometimes. She has 400 friends on her list. Deena linked to her LJ from this board today. None of these people is expecting freedom from being linked to or quoted by anyone on the Net.

I think having quoted text in between paragraphs signals topic changes and keeps people from skimming. That's why I meara. --Noumenon, faking you out

If I came in here and the name in all these posts were Noumenon instead of Zoe, I would be taking them to heart. By which I mean, I would be crying or something that so many people didn't like me so much. I'm sorry this has all come out in public here. It all could've been prevented by the Marcie.

(I subscribe to smonster's/Allyson's view, and that makes punishment the wrong response in my mind. The Marcie is the answer.)

You got bad html in that there post, Nou. t edit - I fixed it

I wonder if victor and jengod gave up Stomping because they didn't want to have to make the decision,

It was entirely for personal reasons.

She is not following our guidelines of etiquette, but no one wants to be accused of breaching etiquette by calling for a warning. If we had a way of anonymously (or visible only to admins) marking the posts we thought were breaching etiquette, and a rule was established about how many votes/posts warranted a warning, *then* the rule would "enforce itself".

I think if you want a LiveJournal post to be private, you should mark it that way.

Isn't that what a "group protected post" is?

You got bad html in that there post, Nou.

Now there's a born stompy. I was on it before I read your post, but I think you're the one who got it.

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

Do we want someone who enjoys causing trouble to be a part of the community?

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

Because it's the first step. And because it's a fair start. If she isn't warned then she has no way of knowing the extent to which her behavior irritates.

If nothing is done, then it's a bit of a smack in the face of people who are upset and feeling irritated and feeling like this person is being deliberately rude and upsetting (note: I'm not one of these people. I just don't like to see the community turmoil her posts can cause). If we don't say anything to this poster, how can we justifiably say anything in the future to other posters who are strange, off putting and unwilling to be part of the community?

I'm not on anybody's friends list, and I've read LJ about this. I don't know if Connie was bringing up a private discussion or not.

A system similiar to this was discussed and decided against.

Oh. So how was it left, then? That people had to come in and request a warning? Because I think what Kat and others are saying is that maybe we need a better way of inititating the process.

(Feel free to correct me if I am erroneously speaking for anyone.)