I just want to say one more thing about bringing up warnings.

Everyone I know that finally said something about Zoe's behaviour did it after a lot of frustration and thought. No one rushed into it.

There hasn't been a history of people rushing around trying to get other people warned.

We've had two cases (and only two because mieskie and Schmoker were the same person) where a number of people have felt that a particular person consistently fails to meet the basic etiquette standards of the board.

Leaving Zoe out of this completely for a moment, there are rules & guidelines for dealing with problem posters and this community has to be willing to stick by those rules and use them.

I have a few, possibly, random, thoughts on all of this.

I'm fairly new here. It still freaks me out when I see my name in someone else's post (hey Nou!) because I think of myself as pretty much invisible most of the time, just sort of going along, saying my howdies, being as buffistalike as I can be insofar as I understand that to mean, taking the corrections given (i.e., backchannel, inappropriate levity) even if I didn't really understand the problem and figuring out what I did wrong and saying my sorries, saying them, sometimes, when the problem wasn't what I said but how someone read it. That's just the way it is. Doesn't matter if you intended to be unkind or ugly, if something you do hurts someone or frustrates them, you apologize, and you learn to be sensitive and you figure out another way to say it. You try to improve. If you think someone has a problem with you, you try to talk to them about it and figure out a way to fix it. At least, that's my rule, I think it's pretty much the buffista rule, so far as I've seen.

What I find interesting about some of this, is that I consider everyone with a lower user number than mine, and many with a higher one, to be one of the cool kids. I'm not, because I'm me. But everyone else is, especially if they seem to fit pretty seamlessly with the community and flow with it. Maybe I'm not the only one who thinks everyone else is a cool kid.

Someone pointed out to me, somewhere, sometime, that if another poster bothered me, I could point out to them that what they said disturbed me. I thought about that awhile. Realized that I felt embarrassed that, instead of saying something, I'd go to another thread and stop hanging in their neighborhood of the party anymore. That I didn't really MARCIE, or self-doblerize, I ran away so I wouldn't have to deal with it. Not my problem anymore. That hardly seemed to be fulfilling my civic duty. And so then I did my civic duty, as I saw it, when Zoe posted her religion joke. Ouch.

I remember being highly annoyed with schmoker when he got into a minor kerfuffle with another poster, who subsequently apologized, and immediately dashed into bureacracy to complain. In my mind, it seemed as if the schoolyard bully was looking for the teacher to protect him after he'd pushed someone down. I think, though, that in that instance he was trying to obey the rules of buffistadom as he saw them. Something to ponder.

I think, though, that we've all been very leary of starting something that could turn into a lather, rinse, repeat of the last Thing. Unfortunately, that's made us, me, anyway, afraid to say too much. Afraid to bring it up. It had to reach a point where I don't think we're as capable of being calm and positive about it as if it had been brought up before.

I think we do need a process for the gap. A way of dealing with things, a way to check with others and see if they're of like mind, calmly, without tempers being engaged because it's just gone on too long.

Weighing in on the Zoe issue after plowing through 150 or so posts:

First, I have real issues with the “she has a disability” argument. For one, several people here are dealing with mental disorders and yet no one else seems “incapable” of avoiding stepping all over other people’s feet. In other words, she can have a mental disorder that plays into the problem and *still* be a troll, in my book. It may be unintentional on her part, but nevertheless, if one definition of a troll is someone who pops into a thread, misbehaves, and quickly makes it revolve all around her and her behavior, then she is a troll.

Furthermore, she herself has made no claim that her health problems are severe enough to make her incapable of recognizing polite interaction, and therefore making such a claim seems unreasonably presumtuous to me. And why should we presume it must be so? Because otherwise there is no excuse for the way she posts? In that case, there *is* no excuse for the way she posts.

I also have problems with the Big Brother analogy because it assumes that we are a government. We are not. And enforcing CS does not seem Orwellian to me.

I am still undecided about whether or not a warning should be issued, at least on this last offense. But now that the question has been raised, I *do* think that the next serious offense should warrant one.

In part, we hesitate to take it to an official level, specifically because we learned a difficult object lesson with mieskie.

I’m not convinced we all learned the same lesson. Some of us learned he was an OK guy at heart, all he needed was a little love. Others learned he was a lying troll from start to finish & that suspension and banning were appropriate.

I don't understand why everything is blown up into such a mountain around here and why it takes a couple thousand posts, people stomping out of the thread, and in some cases leaving the board out of frustration, before something is done around here. I run a board. It shouldn't be this hard. Really.

ITA, except for the part about running a board myself. As I said before, a warning does not signal THE END OF THE WORLD & does not warrant this level of handwringing, IMO.

a warning does not signal THE END OF THE WORLD & does not warrant this level of handwringing

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

But this doesn't change the fact that, as a stompy, I sit here going "So do I warn her? Have the conditions been fulfilled?"

I feel quite vacuous, because whether or not I think she should be warned, I'm not sure of the precise conditions. And I suspect that might have been what Gandalfe was talking about last night.

Agreed with Burrell. Also Amyth, because clarity is an important part of feeling like the process is working.

So... what's the next step? I like Cindy's "fill-gap" idea; what do Stompies think, since they're the ones who will have to carry it out (if implemented)? What do people who don't agree with this instance of it think of it in general?

Maybe I'm not the only one who thinks everyone else is a cool kid.

I thought the whole idea of the Buffistas is that we're all cool kids! Okay, cool kids who post for hours on a Friday night, and then turn off the computer and read a comic book before going to bed by 11:30, but, you know, somebody out there's definition of cool.

Chex:

ita, do you think it's an ambiguity of the formal Stompy duties that makes you feel vacuous? Like, how many posts do you need, or whether you need unanimity, or some kind of minimum complainant turnout for you to feel empowered to act Stompily?

That's sort of a side issue from what we've been talking about, but I've had it in the back of my mind for a while to bring up. At some future date, when other things weren't all happening at once.

Okay, cool kids who post for hours on a Friday night, and then turn off the computer and read a comic book before going to bed by 11:30, but, you know, somebody out there's definition of cool.

Hey! I fall asleep with the TV on. I am not reading comic books.

do you think it's an ambiguity of the formal Stompy duties that makes you feel vacuous? Like, how many posts do you need, or whether you need unanimity, or some kind of minimum complainant turnout for you to feel empowered to act Stompily?

It's not an ambiguity of the duties, per se. It's an ambiguity of the process. As in, as you say, how many do you need. I don't think it'll ever be unanimous, once discussion starts, but I'm just afeared of the whole rampaging cabal allegation shit.

But, sweet lord, let's avoid a vote. If a board ever voted on whether or not I needed a warning, I'd leave right then.

Dude, I'm willing to do it, irrespective of my own feelings on the matter. I think it's been made clear that the community is disrupted, and patience levels have been way exceeded. But I'm absolutely not able to compose anything, so I feel a bit impotent.

Wheatabix to give the blood texture...

That's sort of a side issue from what we've been talking about, but I've had it in the back of my mind for a while to bring up. At some future date, when other things weren't all happening at once.

Well, in this particular case at least, I think the stompies job is exacerbated, because some people clearly wanted a warning, and a couple of people did not think a warning was called for. I have no clue what a poor stompy is supposed to do in that circumstance, nor do I have a clue what I'd want a stompy to do. And given how nice most Buffistas are, I think in most cases, we're going to have people against issuing a formal warning. And that's when we go all Yoko Factor on each other.

That's why I suggested bridging the gap (although what I suggested needs refining, that was just brain storming, and I think more people need to give input or at least weigh in on it). Because a notice wouldn't have teeth, I would think that even if people were opposed to a notice being issued, they wouldn't object as strenuously, because it's really no more formal than an average poster shaking the clue-stick. It's just (in theory) harder to ignore.

Well, if we DON'T vote on whether to warn Zoe,

And I, personally, think this does NOT warrant a vote,

then how will it be decided whether to warn her? Because something has to be done. Others have mentioned that people are becoming rude to Zoe. And I will say upfront that if she keeps posting the way she has, I *will* be rude. I am past my tolerance point with her. And so are many others.

So if ita, as a Stompy, feels vacuous, and a vote isn't appropriate, how to we decide? There will never be unanimity about ANYTHING, much less the criteria for a warning.