A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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.)
Nou---"group protected posts" that you referenced, that means those Livejournal posts were marked private.
The point of the warning would be that we are following established community standards. What is the point of having rules if we don't enforce them? And even if Zoe behaves this way because she is somehow
incapable
of adhering to CS, that doesn't mean she gets to violate CS with impugnity.
No the ranking of posts so someone is automatically banned, the Buffistas decided against a system that would rank or rate users like that.
Oh. So how was it left, then? That people had to come in and request a warning?
The system wasn't really designed for warnings and how to issue them. I think it was a rating system and once your approval rating dropped below X then you were voted off Buffista island for a period of time.
There wasn't a resolution on how to request a warning. And I think this may be the first or second time it happened.
Because I think what Kat and others are saying is that maybe we need a better way of inititating the process.
We may need a better way of initiating the process. But I also think that someone needs to swallow the premonitions of Bad Things to Come and just post and ask. And tell the poster you're upset with that you're upset and going to make moves to request an official warning.
I'm not really being clear, I guess. What I'm trying to say is that if it is Bad Enough that someone is willing to go against the group etiquette, then it's Bad Enough to seriously consider giving this person a warning. Also, I'd like to see better ways to mediate disputes. Not that I want a conflict resolutiony deal, but that asking for a warning shouldn't be seen just as knuckle smacking. But as the second step (the first should be other users saying, "Calm Down! Not Okay!") in a greater process for trying to integrate a person into our community or show them to the door.
Sorry askye, you replied while I was composing. I wasn't trying to ignore your post by repeating myself in 9284. But I stand by what I said in 9289.
I thought PMM was saying "LJ is private, especially because some of it is really private." I wouldn't expect connie to be bringing up a shh-shh protected post, so I thought she was in trouble for mentioning LJs at all.
I felt the weird butterflies (because I feel like I'm often marked the baddie because I tend towards the upfront which is read as confrontational) when I posted that I was requesting an official warning.
I've been back and read that and you made a great introduction to the topic, Kat. Nice and parliamentary.
The point of the warning would be that we are following established community standards. What is the point of having rules if we don't enforce them?
So we follow the rule just to follow it even if it might make the situation worse?
And even if Zoe behaves this way because she is somehow incapable of adhering to CS, that doesn't mean she gets to violate CS with impugnity.
No. It means that it's annoying but we put up with it because the only other choice is banning which would be totally out of line.
Trudy whips out some Oliver Sacks.
I know from neurological stuff. It's irrational and annoying but short of being dangerous there isn't much to be done.
