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.

I meant wouldn't the whole shadowy behind-the-scene manouvering be more upsetting to the majority of posters than an open discussion.

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.

Yes, this.

It also might seem like less of one if the person being discussed would discuss the behavior with us.

And this.

I think, in many circumstances, a person (well, I would, anyway) would welcome the chance to participate/apologize/defend themselves in this forum, rather than have the impression that people were raging about them behind their back.

We can't force Zoe to come here, but we've given her every opportunity, and she's been made aware several times in several ways.

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

But while I know that a lot of you in here have the standing within the community as well as the writing abilities to come in here and stand up for yourself, I'm going to admit: If I saw there were 300+ posts about me and what a pain in the arse I was to some, while others speculated about my mental condition, I may not feel like jumping into the fray either. I can understand how someone may feel like the situation was very intimidating, and the decks were stacked against them.

I don't like the notion of backchannel at all. I prefer to discuss issues which concern the community in this thread. Whether it is proposing a new Monkey thread or discussions concerning violations of community standards.