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
You know what. You're right. Obviously I'm the one in the wrong here. I'm the one who is Orwellian for asking that the CS be enforced.
I've exceeded my Bureaucracy posts for life and now am certainly out of equilibirum with Laura, my posting Doppelganger.
And on that, I'm done with Bureaucracy.
edited to say, For that reason, I've gone back through, pruned the deadwood of my thoughts (those that are repetitive, reductive, or otherwise not really useful) and made a nice little bonfire. I'm tired of repeating myself and trying to refine my ideas as I write and I don't see the point in leaving words that were written to get my thoughts straight, especially since it was all repetition on the same theme. I left two posts intact because those actually are the most coherent and clear of what I had to say.
If I'm going to be called Orwellian, then I prefer removing some of the words which make me seem that way.
Hence the deletia. Sorry if it makes the conversation confusing, but the context around what I said is not useful and it won't help you understand.
I'm just disagreeing with you and saying that actually doing it is going too far.
So if enough people come in here and repeatedly request it, would it be OK to warn her? Because I think more people would have done it if they weren't afraid of the repercussions (for them).
[ETA context]
I'm saying that
I
don't agree with a "warning". That
I
think it is going too far. That it sets a tone that
I
don't like.
A million people may come in and agree with me. Who knows?
This is exactly why we need to make some kind of rule about how warnings get initiated. Because not everyone agrees that she should be warned, and not having a procedure lets things get ugly.
(come back Kat!)
(I really have to go to sleep.)
I wasn't going for ugly and I don't know how that happened. I apologize.
She has been asked to think about her posts repeatedly, unofficially, and politely. And that hasn't changed a thing. The next step is an official warning - or notice if the term bothers you.
And, respectfully, hauling Big Brother into the conversation is one of the ways to make a polite discussion not so very polite any more.
{Trudy}
I'll be back tomorrow after a modicum of rest.
"Orwellian" was too strong a word.
But "nitpicky" is too weak a word. I really feel like there should be something inbetween.
Kat, I really think it would have been better to have left your posts - context is everything in these conversations, after all.
Trudy, maybe there is a strong-yet-not-inflammatory word for what you want to express. What, exactly, is it that you think we're trying to do that is objectionable? (serious question) Because I think that we're trying to warn someone that their behaviour is upsetting, objectionable, and against the stated standards of this community.
