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.

I think that banning would be horribly unfair. And, moreover, I don't like who that would make us.

This is what I've been trying to say. And warning so quickly lead to banning last time that I don't think it's putting the cart before the horse to look at it this way.

my only little quibble is that my mother has a head injury and sometimes she also veers off the tracks, so I know how strange and quirky such things can make a person. If Zoe didn't show signs of that, fine; but she does IMO.

Yeah, same here (well, neurological disorder). I know lots of people here have mental illness issues (including me) but this sort of injury would not be the same thing. It's more like tourretts-- not only can't it be controlled, it can't always be percieved by the person doing it.

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 agree that "Orwellian" was too stong, but "pile-on" is highly useful. No one person intends to be nasty, but 15 or 20 people being terse at once is provocative and it's not nice.

No one person intends to be nasty, but 15 or 20 people being terse at once is provocative and it's not nice.

When fifteen or twenty people get pissed off at once, don't you think the problem isn't that they're pissed, but that someone has seriously crossed a freaking line? Most of this shit is crossposting.

One outrageous thing is said. A bunch of peeps get mad ALL AT ONCE.

And I'm sorry, if I'm burning with rage and somehow fail to step away from the freaking keyboard, I'm NOT going to wait and see if everyone else is burning with rage and foaming at the mouth before I snap.

That's an unreasonable expectation in real-time.

Of course, most of the time, I step away from the keyboard.

I think part of what happens, and part of what Trudy's trying to verbalize, is that these sorts of situations tend to feed on themselves. Like, seeing five people you do like snipe at someone you kind of don't like makes that second person far less likeable, and the bar for sniping at them gets lowered. I don't know how this happens, but it does.

Zoe has never upset me enough that I couldn't walk away from it. Ever. So the whole up-in-arms thing is kind of baffling to me. I will admit that I agree with Trudy that part of the problem is that if you pick at a scab, it will not heal.