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.

And it's not a "veterans piling on" thing to me either. If someone who'd been posting 3 days was offended by something, anything, that violates community standards, their opinion is valid. Statistically speaking, those who complain are likely to be vets, because there are more vets posting, and even though it took this long, perhaps vets are more likely to speak up. But should they not, just because they've been posting here since year dot?

Thank you, ita.

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.

Bless you, Nutty.

Considering how often the group reaction is a flurry of crossposts (and yes, I know, we shouldn't have a group reaction, we should self-Doblerize, blah blah blah, but that's harder for some than for others), it's pretty obvious in real time that it's the sound of a hundred brains exploding.

I haven't weighed in yet, because I had limited Buffista time yesterday, and chose to spend it in other threads. But I'm all caught up now. I'm x-posting with a lot of people that I agree with, but I want to get in my two cents.

I agree that there's probably something a bit off about Zoe. I don't personally have a problem with employing the personal MARCIE, but I think that it's apparent by the volume of posts here, and the responses she has provoked on other threads at times that quite a few others have more than reached their tolerance with her. Ergo, problem.

So, we send a warning. I don't think that's such a big deal. It's not a banning. Really, it's not even close. But, if we ever want to ban anyone, ever in the future, for anything we have to be willing to take this first step.

This is a first step towards a lot of things. Most importantly, towards clarity. Once the warning, or notice is given, we can't say we haven't been clear that a significant number of people have had a problem with Zoe's post in x, y, and z ways. We can try and work with her because of her specialness, her youth, whatever, but first we need to be clear, I think. Someone used the example above (sorry for not going back and referring) of a job review, and I think that's apt. Not that we aren't about fun, here, but this is obviously affecting a lot of people's fun, and y'all (ita, et al.) work hard to keep this place running, and we should respect that.

If you're screwing up in your job, there may be a million reasons for it, and you shouldn't necessarily be fired. But before your boss can work with you on your particular special circumstances, there needs to be a moment where you two sit down and things are made clear and official what the problems are. No matter what the course of action taken after that is, there can be no denial or murkiness about what the problem is, and that all the pertinent people have been made aware in an official way.

So. This warning doesn't have to be mean. It doesn't have to be the end of the world. It just has to be clear. It's up to Zoe to decide what to do with it. The trying-to-be-nice-and-moving-on approach doesn't seem to have worked for a lot of people. The trying-to-correct-behavior-within-the-thread hasn't worked, either. So this is what's next.

I don't agree that if she's a troll, that warning her will be giving her exactly what she wants. Isn't that precisely why we have the warning system in the first place? If she's mentally ill or just unable for whatever reason to understand the nuances of communicating on the board, the warning is a next step (again, not mean) in helping her understand.

If she's mentally ill/special in some way, she's fairly high-functioning, and seems to have periods of lucidity, where her posts make at least some sense. We should at least give her the opportunity to understand what we are trying to say once it is written out in a complete form, and not assume that she is incapable of it. That's not really fair to her, either.