'Serenity'
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
So we follow the rule just to follow it even if it might make the situation worse?
I'm sorry, how would it make the situation worse to notify Zoe (or any poster) that her/their behaviour is in violation of CS?
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.
Ummm... Why?
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.
That's a whole 'nother ball of wax - then people *have* to vote, whereas in my vision you only vote (or flag, mark, etc.) if you're seriously pissed, offended or upset. The votes are negative instead of positive, see. AND it's not completely automatic, because Stompies get brought in early on. Of course, it would increase the workload of being a Stompy immensely.
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.
Either she already knows and doesn't care (or enjoys it) or she just can't get it. I reeeeeeally think it is the second.
Let's just pretend for a second that it is. What if someone had a disability that made civil discourse not always possible? I think it would be unkind (and by people who CAN do better) to harp on it.
I'm too tired to think or deal rationally, I'll check in after I wake up.
I'm sorry, how would it make the situation worse to notify Zoe (or any poster) that her/their behaviour is in violation of CS?
Because if she's doing it deliberately we are only feeding her and the behaivor will increase.
Why would banning be wrong? Because it's just not THAT bad.
Let's just pretend for a second that it is. What if someone had a disability that made civil discourse not always possible? I think it would be unkind (and by people who CAN do better) to harp on it.
So when a person with a disability spits in your face you should just sit and take it because they can't help themselves? Or do you just stop inviting them to your party?
Besides, I'm not convinced that Zoe has such a disability, nor has she (to my knowledge) claim to have one.
Why would banning be wrong? Because it's just not THAT bad.
Which is why we are discussing warning her. Because it is that bad. IMO.
Even if she can't help it (which I agree is most likely the case), she's causing too much harm to the community. Is tolerating her worth driving many others away?
Even if we had MARCIE, I don't think it would solve the problem.
Okay---jumping back in a second before I go to bed.
If Zoe does have a medical reason for her behaviour then I'm willing to give her some kind of allowances but so far we have no proof of this only speculation. If she does have a medical reason then, well, we shouldn't warn her and figure out something.
However, if she is a troll , then we do need to warn her. Warning her won't changer her behaviour but it will lead to her getting banned, yes I realize that if Zoe were to recieve another warning she would be suspended. However, if she is acting to deliberatly disrupt our community then that's what we need to do in order to end the disruption.
This isn't a by-invitation party. It's more of a public square where you can wander away from the guy who keeps talking about shower curtain rings.
And it was a "just suppose".