I felt like there was a pile-on in here against people who have been upset and baffled by Zoe's behavior.

Which, again, makes me wonder why we're going out of our way for someone who doesn't follow community standards, at the expense of the hundreds of people who DO.

fwiw, Zoe's the only person who has driven me to back channel and she does my head in. My comments should be taken within the context of that. I envy everyone with an InnerDoblerizer, because I very much don't have one most of the time.

I'm not trying to hurt anyone here, and I'm sorry if it looks like I'm prioritising the rights of one person over the rights of lots of people. That isn't my intention. I have no problem with Zoe being officially made aware that there's an issue, but banning seems inappropriate to me at this juncture - because I don't think she's doing this on purpose.

We're not even close to banning, and I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up.

We aren't discussing banning.

We're discussing giving her an Official Notice that many community members find her posts disruptive, and those community members have tried to point it out in-thread, but those instance have been ignored.

That's all. Just sending her an official notice.

IF she ignores that, it COULD lead to banning. Because that's the way the agreed-upon system works.

But banning is NEVER the first step with a non-spammer.

And I think a pile-on from the cool kids (ie-- vetrans) is wrong even if someone has it coming.

Oh god, the Cool Kids! Is this the Buffista equivalent of invoking Nazis on USENET? Because in both cases it short-circuits the argument and diverts everyone's attention. And you know what? As one of the complainants, I'm offended by the implication that I'm "ganging up" on someone or being cliquish. I'm just saying publically what I've been thinking privately for a long time. I didn't need to consult other people to know I was really annoyed. As of now, please let us never use this phrase in accusatory manner ever again. EVER.

Okay? Elena's already taken care of "Orwellian" as a not-useful word, and I think "pile-on" may be next on my useless-word-shitlist.

I especially like Cindy #9351 and 9354 as exellent summations of "Where are we at? What are our options?" Because I started this discussion wondering How Much Is Too Much, i.e. do cumulative, unmitigated offenses ever add up to something actionable? I'm thinking yes, still, and overnight discussion has convinced me that we could use "notice" or "intervention" instead of "warning" to get across the cluestick.

I think that ignoring disruptive behavior is a bad idea, as that behavior then becomes entrenched. It also tends to get worse over time. We've also seen that it tends to bring out the worst in ourselves.

This all is definitely true, and why I'm glad we're discussing it, in Bureaucracy. At the very least, we can all clear the air. Having got it off our chests -- and moreso than I'm 100% comfortable with, especially the parts where many are attributing to Zoe some mental incapacity I have never seen her directly claim -- I think we're ready to move on into the thinking clearly part of bureaucracy. How do people feel about Cindy's "fill the gap" idea, linked above, in theory? That is, if it had to be applied to you, Missy and/or Young Mister Buffista, how would you feel about it? Do you think that the list of If/Then statements Cindy worked out will actually happen under application? Can you see flaws?

Basically, let's try to move forward. In 15 hours, we've already gotten circular and repetitive, and I'd like to change that.

We're mentioning banning because if, after she's been officially warned, Zoe doesn't change her behaviour, and someone asks that Zoe be warned again she'll be suspended for 2 months.

IF she ignores that, it COULD lead to banning. Because that's the way the agreed-upon system works.

Not COULD lead to banning, WILL lead to suspension, which is the way the policy is written.

We're mentioning banning because if, after she's been officially warned, Zoe doesn't change her behaviour, and someone asks that Zoe be warned again she'll be suspended for 2 months.

It just seems extraordinarily cart-before-the-horse-ish, and it seems to be obscuring the true issue at hand.

Not COULD lead to banning, WILL lead to suspension, which is the way the policy is written.

I mean COULD lead to banning, because if the warning is ignored, then a suspension is next, and then she may come back and her behavior may be less disruptive -- i.e., no banning.

That just took more words to say. I figured everyone already understood the implied if...then inherent in the system.

And now I really have to go. I genuinely look forward to reading futher posts when I get back.

FWIW, I made my last post so people couldn't say she was only upsetting "the cool kids". I don't feel I am well known enough to qualify as a "cool kid", and Zoe is upsetting to me and to others. Whether or not those others qualify as "the cool kids" is, IMO, irrelevant.

You know what, I freely pulled the "I've been here a long time" card, but I did to let someone else know that I completely understand how this system works and take it very seriously.