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.

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.

Again, I concur with ita here. For me, this would drive me absolutely apeshit. I mean, foamingly angry. Really, really, really damned angry. I understand that it wouldn't have that impact upon you, but it would totally push my buttons to have everyone suddenly turn into 'bots rather than have individuals talking to me as individuals.

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

I think it's very subjective. I and others may be more primed for a blowout with that approach, rather than less.

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

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

But it hasn't been calm. The cumulative effect has been decidedly un-calm. If it's the same statement fifteen times there is simply less fuel for the fire.

But it hasn't been calm

Go back. Read. It was calm. And then ... it devolved. Because people are human. If it's gotten to the place where people CAN'T self-Doblerise, then they can't do your shorthand either, can they?

I think in this particular situation it could be useful.

And on the whole Zoe question, if we give her this unofficial warning, if she ignores it, can she get an official warning?

I think so - that's why I'm calling it Stage 1. See Cindy's post (which I am too lazy to Nilly) saying hopefully getting the unofficial warning (or Notice if you prefer) would be enough to encourage those who want to play nice to change their behavior. And it wouldn't have to be such a Big Deal to issue one, because it's intended to be a Nice Heads Up.