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?

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.

But this HAS already happened! Zoe has been politely told by many, many people to please modify her tone, and the result has been guff, snippiness and more guff.

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?

Gar, loosely speaking, that was me. And not a warning, but a new category of Stompy Action called an intervention, which does not change the user's status the way a warning does. Basically, I don't want any Tom Dick or Harry to go grinding his axe by asking for an intervention every week, but I also don't want the Stompies floundering around wondering at what point in the discussion they're empowered to act. (I picked 5 because it is a nice number and because it is good enough for Vote Proposals. We could end up with something different, no big.)

It's still at the what-if stage, so if you think there's something wrong with the idea, please explain further.