I think it would be if no one were arguing that B McP didn't and we were just going on about it with no arguments to the contrary. It also might seem like less of one if the person being discussed would discuss the behavior with us.

I can see that us talking about it with out them here to defend themselves can seem like a flogging, but that's not really our fault.

Not to be contrary, but just because, frankly, ya'll fascinate me: Isn't a 300+ conversation in Bureaucracy about just how much Buffistina Mcpaininthearse needs a warning because of x,y, and z instances of annoyance also akin to a public flogging?

Yes, I kind of think it is.

Which isn't to say that it shouldn't happen, because I do recognise that people are frustrated by this instance & by previous instances with other posters. We do need a way to deal with posters who aren't adhering to community standards/are consistently upsetting other people, but I'm not sure this thread is the way to deal with them. I mean, yeah, this is the place to talk about policy, but once we have a firm policy, I'm not sure that spending hundreds of posts discussing the iniquities of any given Buffistina Monkeypants is the way forward. It's like making this into a courtroom. And I don't think that's what Kafka's for.

thinks

t gogogadget asspull

I wonder, would it be feasible to have a policy whereby, rather than publicly coming over here and invoking a stompy, one simply emailed a stompy officially oneself via backchannel when one was offended/distressed and considered another poster's behaviour to be beyond the pale? Without all this discussing, but just by way of expressing one's own feeling of 'this person needs an intervention/stomping/whatever'? And after, say, three (or five, or whatever) such independent expressions of unhappiness from community members (this is assuming that all stompies were kept in the loop) via backchannel, then the stompy would quietly email the person with a request that they modify their behaviour, and copy the objecters in on the matter? And if problems persisted, and members complained again, then a more serious warning - with reminder of consequences - could be sent. And if problems persisted, then maybe either banning or else some more public pre-banning form of intervention?

Are there loads of flaws in this? Probably. Um. But I'm uncomfortable with the sense of public flogging, both in the specific and in the general.

Is this a dumb idea?

I'm just saying voter turnout does not necessarily translate into dedication or frequency of posts.

Of course not. I was just using that as shorthand to explain why Kafka can get a hundred or three posts in a short period of time. I did not mean to imply anything about dedication or frequency.

Are there loads of flaws in this?

The biggest flaw I can think of is the whole backchannel aspect. Wouldn't it really seem out of the blue for a poster to be warned/suspended/banned without any public discussion? Wouldn't that be more upsetting?

FayJay, I haven't given it much thought, so I may be wrong, but my initial reaction is that decisions to warn/etc should NOT be made backchannel. Because then it really will be a situation where those who feel less comfortable here (and who would therefore be less likely to go backchannel) are disempowered by the procedure. Plus the stompies will be forced to make decisions backchannel, which they have already stated they don't want to do, and based on less information about how the board as a whole feels.

Another problem is that, if the whole accusation/fustration registration process takes place behind the scenes, there will be no way for someone to defend herself--or to come to the defense of another--until a decision has already been made.

I think so Elena. I think Kat's actions were completely right. She said in the thread where people got bothered that people were bothered and that she was coming over here.

It gave everyone, bothered and botherer, a chance to discuss it in the open.

Backchanneling, without everyones opinions with their names on them for the botherer to see, and then an official warning seems, can't think of a good word, but cliquey comes to mind.

Edit- Burrell explained that last part way better than I did.

Backchanneling, without everyones opinions with their names on them for the botherer to see, and then an official warning seems, can't think of a good word, but cliquey comes to mind.

Kafkaesque might work, too.

Wouldn't that be more upsetting?

I don't think it need be, no. A polite - which doesn't have to mean icily civil, it can mean pleasant & supportive - word from an Official person to cluestick you that you've upset some people quite badly and that you're not adhering to the community standards in the FAQ might be as upsetting as having one's iniquities discussed at length in Kafka, but I don't think it would be more upsetting. And it would have the bonus of not exhausting/upsetting people with lengthy discussions of whether Buffistina MP was good, bad or indifferent. And if everyone knew this was the process, they'd know that if they were pissed off they just emailed ita/whoever and asked that their pissed offness be recorded for posterity, so there wouldn't be a sense of "why isn't anyone doing anything?" or "what should I do?" or whatever.

Remember this instance started out with Kat telling Zoe she found her behavior outside community standards and that she was bringing it up in bureaucracy. I don't think it was intended to be Kafka-court. Had Zoe come over and discussed what happened with Kat and whomever was here, it wouldn't have gone on so long. The reason warnings were considered is, in part, because she didn't respond to in thread complaints, and didn't come here when asked.

It did sort of turn into that, but there was a goodly number of how-to-handle-this-type-of-situation posts in this group. It wasn't all public flogging.

semi x-post with Heather

Fajay - I thinking something along that line would be good - with the proviso that five (or whatever) e-mails would not automatically get the stompy to generate the warning. Five e-mails would be enough for the stompies to backchannel among themselves, and consider whether the problem was primarily with poster or the people offended.

And if they did think the problem was the poster, then they would send either a "pre-warning" or a real warning depending upon what they though the situation required. And if was a real warning then the person warned would be given the opportunity to request public discussion in bureaucracy, if they chose not to then the person would just be warned. In terms of banning - same thing - an opportunity to post in bureaucracy if they wanted a chance to defend themselves, otherwise not. If someone was banned, then the fact would be posted in bureaucracy, along with the dates of warnings and pre-warnings. If the person chose not to argue, then it would be noted that the circumstances were not disclosed at the bannees request.

So it would only be discussed at the request of the person being warned or banned, and then for a fixed period of time. No need for days of discussion. It would be open for discussion at time of the stompy and other person mutual conventience. Anyone there at that time could take part; those not there - sorry you would miss it. If the stompy though someone else should be included, that would be part of setting up the time.