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?

Anyhow, we're pretty much just giving her what she wants, so can we warn her and have done with it? She knows the thread is here. She's probably sickly pleased at the damage done.

At this point, I don't care what her motivation is, if it's boredom or mental illness or what.

I have no more slack to cut.

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

What about the proposition that it will inflame?

Alright, the dog has grown opposable thumbs and hooked on her own leash. The sun is out, I have to leave for the theater in 45 minutes, and the thumbs look weird. I gotta go.

::MWAH::

Yes Fay, my paragraph is very wordy! I'm better at editing other's words than my own.

Oh, it was a nice paragraph! I liked it. I just think that in this instance it's pitched all wrong, because communication is the crux of the problem. Big words and complex sentences wouldn't help, imho.

I have never seen Nutty's ass, so I have no opinion on it. But what she pulled out of it? Seems fair, reasonable, all those things.

Trudy--I have also been made uncomfortable by the bellicose tone some posters have taken towards Zoe. I have to admit the "brain-damage" comment by Allyson affected me like a blow and I had to leave the thread to recover. But Allyson aplogized when called on it. I spent almost an hour composing a message to Zoe about why her posts might make people become angered and how she might change her style a bit to avoid that--since I saw this coming a couple of weeks ago. She never responded. I am not sure the comfort of the rest of us is of interest to her--although I hope I am misjudging her.

I think we can ask Buffistas to make a conscious choice try to react to rudeness with calm--rather than institutionalize that into a catch-phrase--and that might work better.

Being given a chance (should I care to take it) to explain myself would antagonise me less.

I don't much like the all use one phrase idea. I would find it offensive and I'd probably leave and never come back.

I'm going back to using me as an example because I don't want to apply this to this one particular person since I don't think that it necessarily applies to this situation.

I've said this before, but, I think it bears repeating. I came into bureacracy when I was being discussed. The discussion, while somewhat hurtful, was intelligent and thoughtful. People were suggesting possibilities re: my non-existence as a physical entity.

If I hadn't had all of those posts explaining why they thought the things they did (IIRC: came in soon after the troll; agreed often with the troll; left at the same time as the troll; came from the same state as the troll) I would never have understood the problem. When I did understand the problem, I explained myself. I explained why I wanted to be here, what I like about this place and these people. I learned why the troll was a troll and what I did that encouraged people to think I could also be a troll or a non-entity. I think we came to a mutual understanding. I learned better what makes this board great, others learned that I'm somewhat incoherent and naive but also kind-hearted and real.

I believe, if there is a poster who is offensive, either because they don't realize the line they've crossed, or think that this board is like any other, a link to bureacracy with a request to come and discuss board proper behaviour, in whatever form the request is worded, is the best solution.

If I hadn't found the discussion, I might never have known why people posted at me out of the corners of their eyes, so to speak. It would have, I believe, either taken longer for people to accept me, or I would have left because I wasn't accepted and never knew why.

I think every poster who doesn't obey the rules of polite conduct often enough to be a concern should be offered the chance to modify their behaviour, first, in thread (and I do believe a lot of people have been very kindly toward the current PIQ (poster in question) and have asked her to explain, even recently, when she's made many more people hit the top of their trollish meter. Then, when it's warranted, and I don't know where that line is, but I believe sooner than in this situation, a politely worded request to come discuss would be in order, (and I like Nutty's suggestion) then on to the more formal steps.

FWIW, I don't think it will work in this instance because, like the past troll, I think this poster will ignore all this and hope it goes away until it's too late and we've all been tied in knots. I still, however, think it's the right procedure to follow, because everyone deserves a chance to defend him or herself and learn how to modify the behaviour that offends.

For more insight into where Zoe's coming from, it might be helpful to check out her website. She cites it in her User Information, so I think it's fair enough to mention it? Because that's how I found it - I was looking for her email address to email her about this stuff.

(If this is an inappropriate suggestion/reference to make here, tell me and I'll delete. I wasn't quite sure. I mean, it's clearly not private information, since anyone can find it in her user info and she put it there to be found - but otoh perhaps it's better to keep this discussion more general and less specific.)

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.

You know, Gar, I tend to agree with you; but I think that Intervention as a middle step is a compromise I can live with. As Amyth said upthread in the 9630s, and Cindy mentioned in her at-first proposal in 9635, it at least establishes clearly "Please be responsible. These are your Buffista responsibilities (civility, etc.). You know what's right now and have no excuses."

I mean, not in so police-y a way as that, but once an Intervention has gone down, then there's no question of "What's the FAQ? Wait, I'm not allowed to...?" Everybody is given a second opportunity (after the initial registration) to get on the same page, and stay there. If they don't stay, then we can go the Warning route.

Agreed with Burrell: diagnosis in absentia borders on the rude itself, and helps the discussion not at all.