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.

OK, some people are saying "I think Zoe should get a warning because of A, B, C".

I'm saying "I think it would be bad because of X, Y, Z."

I thought this was a discussion as to whether she should get one or not. I discussed.

Here is my little position summary:

Point I
I think the response to Zoe's incindiary posts have, cumulatively, been over-reactions. Some individual posts have been downright mean. I think this is rotten for oldies to do to newbies even if the newbies were asking for it.

Point II
If Zoe is a troll a warning won't do any good but rather will be giving her what she wants. OTOH, if Zoe has some sort of delay an official warning won't do any good as the constant unofficial ones have not anyway.

Point III
I think the situation with Mieskie who was, (IMHO) far more deliberately obnoxious and hurtful than Zoe has ever been, went too far too fast. I think it damaged the board and our sense of community. I would like to be careful not to act in haste and do the same thing again.

I thought this was a discussion as to whether she should get one or not.

I think that this is a fair assessment.

For your point the second - but if she is a troll then she should be warned and then suspended if the behaviour continues. If we don't warn trolls because that gives them what they want, aren't we also giving them free reign to indulge in trollish behaviour? (edit) As for if she has some sort of mental problem that makes her unable to post in a manner consistent with our CS - that is pure speculation and should be directly asked of Zoe if/when she participates in this discussion. Then we can decide if it's even relevant.

Points the first and third - I really think that people who are reacting to her are doing their best to be polite under extremely trying circumstances. And if you go back people are very polite to her the first several times things have happened - as it continues, not so much. And, seriously, some of her posts are really much clearer violations of CS than anything mieskye posted, if I recall correctly.

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

Please note:

That goes for people's LJ's, esp. as many of them are group protected posts.

GROUP protected. If I backchannel, be it about her, or about lists, or about people I know in real life, it's ALWAYS group protected. That means locked to ONLY the people I want to see it. ONLY them. THat's marked. There's a little freaking LOCK next to the post, to indicate that it's friends locked.

I'm not going to spell out in 120pt bold Comic Sans "REPEAT NOT THIS POST!"

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.

Nope. See above. Though it HAS been noted that we really better leave LJs out of this. Repeatedly. Often. On a regular basis. Because it's still backchannel, yo. I've seen ONE non-protected post re: this subject. ONE. (Where, say, during the Purring Kerfuffle on one of the lists, I'd see two or three posts about it in a day.)

I have a few dozen of y'all on my list.