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

I see most of that as cross-posting, which is a reality of online life. It happened at the Bronze all the time. Someone would reveal a spoiler, and 15 of us would post really quickly to warn everyone there was a spoiler. Of course the poor bastard who made the mistake felt like he was getting ganged up on, but he wasn't. It's just that each of us who were spoiled, individually, decided to warn everyone else, so you'd see fifteen posts saying:

WARNING: Joe Blow spoiled the finale in his post at 15:16 pm board time. Do not read.

Sometimes in Zoe's case in particular, I think there is a tendency for a lot of folks to speak up, not so much because they're trying to pile on, but because they're thinking, "Well, she didn't seem to get what Cindy and Cashmere said, maybe if I rephrase it, it will be more clear."

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 am postulating ex-cloaca here:

Intervention (i.e. fill-gap): If user1 feels another user2 is being disruptive, but that user2 may be unaware of or too het up to think about the site rules, user1 may request that user2 be Intervened with. To wit:

• user1 notifies user2 on-thread that Bureaucracy is the place to talk.
  
• user1 goes to Bureaucracy and asks for an Intervention, citing a specific (recent, just now) instance.
  
• user1 gets 4 seconds, just like in Vote Proposing.
  
• A Stompy sees that seconding has been achieved, and sends out a standard Intervention email, with blanks filled in for who and what and a link to the FAQ and all that nice stuff.
• I know there's a Tron joke in here somewhere, but I can't find it.

Takes the creativity (and decision-making) off the shoulders of the Stompy; requires that more than one person note and dislike the disruption; makes the actual Intervention private (hopefully less humiliating?); and doesn't take an hour and a day and attempts at consensus. It also, because it requires no consensus/vote/greater Buffista approval, causes no change in status for user2. S/he just gets an official and officially worded email notifying her in concrete ways that she needs to straighten out and fly right a little more.

I think that will help solve the bringing-it-up shyness, and it will make everybody feel a little better about the gradations of Official Action Of A Stompy Variety.

Like I said, ex-cloaca. Anyone have a counter-proposal?

I'm using dictionary.com a lot today. Cloaca means sewer or latrine. It's no help with ex-cloaca, which, extrapolating, means outside the sewer? That just doesn't seem right.

I really think what I'm proposing is worth considering.

I think Nutty is talking about her ass. It seems to come back to that a lot.

edit:

I really think what I'm proposing is worth considering.

I don't see how your proposal mitigates anything.

I'm thinking perhaps the translation is "out of my ass"?

Hey!

I am picking up something John H said a long, long time ago, comparing the Pope speaking ex-oficio with somebody -- the president? -- speaking out of his hindparts.

But any and all who care to reminisce about my cheese butt, feel free!

I haven’t been involved in any verbal sparing with Zoe so perhaps I am not the best person to propose wording of a warning. Perhaps a warning isn’t even what is needed so much as explaining clearly the problem that the community is having with her posting.

I recently noticed an exchange in UnAmerican which involved a seemingly bizarre post in the middle of an Iraq discussion which linked to a Star Wars article. Several posters questioned the seemingly inappropriate post. A few posts later Zoe explained her reasoning behind the Star Wars link. The whole exchange would not have been so testy if not for the previous problems. Most (not all) of the exchanges that have deteriorated into rudeness when isolated were no big deal. At this point anytime that Zoe posts something seemingly unsuitable it sparks a flurry of reaction by members with already frayed nerves.

Suggested wording –

Zoe, a number of members of this community are frustrated with your style of posting and it is causing a problem we feel needs to be addressed. The objectionable posts have included posts which appear to have no connection to topics being discussed and offensive remarks. Exchanges involving members questioning the logic of your posts have escalated to rudeness which is upsetting to most of the community. In the spirit of maintaining a harmonious community we request you carefully examine your posts and make every effort to explain your points without being rude to other members.

I also might include my tag which I just took out of retirement again.

eta: 12 more posts while I wrote this so I have to back up and see if it is already covered.

Seriously, guys.

Some sort of peaceful protest which addresses the situation without conflagrating it could be of use to us.

At this point anytime that Zoe posts something seemingly unsuitable it sparks a flurry of reaction by members with already frayed nerves.

Has KateP been hanging out in Beauro? I can't remember who I've seen here, but I didn't think she'd been chiming in, so I read her response to Zoe's post as not stemming from this discussion. Which may be my mistake.