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.

Bagels:

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.

I agree. Warning given, not in a mean way. That way we are not becoming complicit in it by not saying anything.

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

So, do we have the guts to do this, is the question? Do we want to do this? It seems that the problem I envision is not so much that Zoe will continue to post in a way that's hard to understand after that warning, but that she will not respond to the warning at all. She has been linked to this discussion and has not jumped in to respond. I agree with Fay that it is intimidating, but I also think that she has shown in some of the forums that she is not shy about posting in a way that is rude and that will make others upset and will cause an uproar. Does she know what she's doing when she does this? We won't know until we ask for a response.

That is, if it had to be applied to you, Missy and/or Young Mister Buffista, how would you feel about it?

I like to think (as a "non-cool-kid" weighing in, whatever that means) that I would welcome a warning. Like I said above, for clarity. I mean, I wouldn't want to receive a warning for just anything, you know. Like, if no one had ever said anything to me in-thread to Doblerize, or mentioned to me in any way that my posts were rude or in some other way in violation of the rules. But, if that had happened a few times (and I'd like to think that I would self-correct, but let's imagine that I wouldn't...grrr) if I received a rational, non-flamey email stating exactly what it was that was pissing people off, I would welcome the opportunity to apologize, explain myself, and correct my behavior. If I felt I was being attacked unfairly, I feel like this community would allow me a forum in which to defend myself, as long as I didn't resort to attacks.

I think that there's a little paranoid voice inside a lot of us (or, well, me) that hates the thought of doing anything like this to someone who isn't clearly Satan because we are afraid of it happening to us somewhere down the road. But if it did happen to me, you know what? I'd live. And I hope I'd deserve it. The same little paranoid voice whispers that hordes of people are going to MARCIE me when MARCIE comes to town. You know what? If people do, then we're all better off in the long run, ultimately.

I think that there's a little paranoid voice inside a lot of us (or, well, me) that hates the thought of doing anything like this to someone who isn't clearly Satan

Yes.

...because we are afraid of it happening to us somewhere down the road.

considers.

Okay, maybe that's in the back of my head, in a do-unto-others-as-you-would-be-done-by kind of way.

But if it did happen to me, you know what? I'd live. And I hope I'd deserve it.

This is true. And, yeah, colour me pretty much sold on the concept of Marcie.