I think it has been tried

It hasn't. I'm talking about a unified behaivor.

At present people are acting as individuals who share a sense of mounting frustration.

Which is what I see as the problem.

If everyone automatically started churning out the calming phrase en masse the effect would instantly polarise a situation. Way worse than at present.

The situation is pretty polarized. And as it stands the "good guys" unintentionally escalate it.

I really don't agree with the calming phrase idea. Bigtime.

It's not to calm Zoe, it's to register dissent and MOVE ON instead of having a 100 post discussion.

This situation isn't a simple one.

So true.

Yes Fay, my paragraph is very wordy! I'm better at editing other's words than my own. Actually, at this point I think I will just send a personal note myself as a non-stompy member of the community that has never been personally involved in either a pleasant or unpleasant exchange with Zoe.

I'm such an old hippie, I just want everyone to get along. Sigh.

Nutty - my problem is a lot less if it is not the same as a warning-leads-to-suspension. I think you can see why I would not want any five random people to be able to do that.

I think though there is a simpler solution. Once enough discussion has taken place to show that a substantial people want a warning then I think it is up to the stompies to decide. In terms of leaving them floundering; I think the solution here is to have the decision be not by one stompy but by a majority. (ita is not the only stompy left, true?) A majority (or a majority of those who can get in contact with one another in a 24 hour period if some are out of contact.) would decide. I guess if there were only two stompies that would requrie a consensus.

And (not in response to you, but in response to others) I don't think the Mieske thing was a mistake at all. Mieske in his orginal form was given every opportunity. And his coming back as Schmoker just confirmed the problem. That he could have behaved better , but chose not to in his original form is not a plus. That as Schmoker, he denied being Mieske, to the point of causing problems for some long term Buffistas who knew he was, was not exactly a point in his favor.

And really, if someone won't respond to a bunch of individual "please chill"s I do think an official warning is the next step. Anyone can occcasinonally lose their temper and say something they regret. But I don't think anyone has ever come close to being given a warning if they simply apologize, and don't do it often. In short, from what I've seen, you can be someone who loses it on more than one occasion, and not have anyone get official on your ass - as long as you don't do it often, as long as you don't do it intentionally, and as long as you apologize if it happens. If you explode frequently or if you explode occasionally and never apologize then you are a problem poster..

I think individuals saying what boils down to the same thing is more effective than a calming phrase say-in because it shows that we're not bots - that everyone individually was offended and is trying to restore order. I don't know, for me that's a lot more respectful than being told to talk to the hand (which I agree is what the effect of a CPSI would be).

I'm against it for most of the reasons already stated, and also because if I'm that pissed, parroting an agreed on phrase isn't going to make me any less pissed, and if I have to wade through 25 or so of the same post? I'm going to start avoiding threads.

As it stands, at least I can get the occasional giggle from the variety.

Again, the phrase isn't to calm. It's to register dissent and move on.

People don't want to just scroll by. This is an alternative.

We're really going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Trudy, because I feel very strongly against this, either in terms of me applying it to other people or in terms of having it applied to me.

Unified behavior? Among the Buffistas? I don't think you'll ever get that.

I can sort of see where you're coming from, Trudy -- although I can also see the opposition -- but I don't think it's practicable. Even when we all know and like and want to follow the rules, sometimes something just pops out (like a spoiler or an insult). Imagine how much harder it would be, trying to maintain the Official Calm Down You Loony Mantra List, who's on it, when we should use it, keeping everyone informed not to respond to the inflammatory posts of So-and-so...

I can't see it even working in terms of what would be posted, much less in terms of being effective on the user we're annoyed with.

While I agree with Trudy that the tone of the responses to Zoe has gotten out of hand, I think her solution is inappropriate. I think that multiple generic & identical comments is not only frustrating for the target of said posts, it also fails to identify the *specific* point of frustration for the senders.

It's more like tourretts

What is "it," pray tell? This presumed unnamed disorder? How can we possibly know what it presents as when we have no idea what it is, or if it even exists? Can we please stop trying to diagnose the woman?