Yeah, not to speak for Kate, but I think she probably didn't know about the Bureaucracy discussion when she posted in Unamerican.

Trudy, my thinking on your proposal is that I tried that. I mean, I aws trying it only by myself, but I made a resolution the time before last that we were on WX, that I would start practicing some of that magnificent Buffista splendor I'd been joking about. And every time I saw something that Zoe said that struck me as rude, I posted, without arguing with her actual content, something like "I think that was rude. Please watch the tone of your posts." I think I even signed one "KGB of Nice".

That was something like six weeks ago. She never responded, and has not gotten any more careful in how she expresses herself. When I specifically asked her for an apology on behalf of someone about whom she said something rude, she just ignored what I'd said. I'm tired of trying as an individual and having no success.

From my perspective, as I noted upthread, 23 people parrotting a code word at me is not non-conflagrating.

It wouldn't be a code word. It would be agreed upon short hand and avoid personal attacks.

are you proposing that if any five people agree then that is enough to give someone an official warning?

Lord no! I'm proposing that we respond to obnoxious behaivor in a calm non-aggressive fashion.

Laura, although I agree with your suggestion, I wanted to mention something about this point of yours:

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.

And a week or so before that in Un-American, Zoe had jumped on BHP. I pointed out (politely, I thought) pretty much what the context of your mock-up notice states. Instead of an explanation or apology from Zoe, I got guff, and she characterized my post as an American lecturing her on Brit history (which had been the discussion at hand), when in fact, I never actually mentioned one historical point, and only pointed out where I thought her posts weren't Buffista-ish.

Also, in either that conversation or one that happened elsewhere, around the same time, she posted something. I asked her about it. She told me not to interrupt her. (How do you interrupt a post that is posted?)

It is not always just a case of simply not getting the connection. There are times when people are polite and they get back a really hostile response. I'm not the only one I've seen this happen to. This situation isn't a simple one.

Trudy--I lreally like the idea of not meeting rudeness with more rudeness, but if it were me and I got a whole bunch of posts all saying the same thing, I would find that way more monolithic and off-putting then dealing with many folks individual opinions--even if one or twoof those folks was kinda snippy or unkind.

Me too - I'd actually find that abrasive, rather than calming, if it happened to me.

Oh, "4 seconds" as in "4 people must agree with you", not as in "you have 4 seconds to prove your point".

Pardon me Trudy, but are you proposing that if any five people agree then that is enough to give someone an official warning? That is one proposer and four seconds gives the warning that they have done something wrong and must change their ways?

Typo Boy, I think it was Nutty that suggested that. Also, it is a "toothless" warning per Cindy's post - there is no "or else". The second stage is a toothed warning. Of course, we have to define how someone gets from Stage 1 to Stage 2. And not everyone is going to get a Stage 1 warning, only those we do like despite sometimes objectionable posts.

[ETA context]

It wouldn't be a code word. It would be agreed upon short hand

To me? Six of one, half a dozen of another. The implication that I cannot be reasoned with as an individual by individuals, the implication that it matters not enough to ask me for clarification or context or justification?

Would bother the fuck out of me.

And certainly not improve my behaviour for the better. It doesn't mean anything, other than I've slammed into a wall of group think. It's like being told to talk to the hand, or being sent to Coventry, both of which are acts of aggression.

Trudy, my thinking on your proposal is that I tried that.

I posted, without arguing with her actual content, something like "I think that was rude. Please watch the tone of your posts."

I'm tired of trying as an individual and having no success.

Which is why we'd have to try as a group.

If fifteen people calmly tell me I've gone over the line I may get pissed and even dig in my heels, but the fire isn't going to spread.

If fifteen people calmly tell me I've gone over the line

It's pretty much happened, hasn't it?

I'm not talking about not ticking off the person doing it, I'm talking about not letting the situation blow-out.

And it wouldn't be instead of a discussion, ita, it would be when discussion isn't working or is making the problem worse (like in the current situation).

Trudy -sorry that was Nutty's proposal. And on the whole Zoe question, if we give her this unofficial warning, if she ignores it, can she get an official warning?