It's really not fair to the stompies to expect them to be backchannel moderators in addition to everything else they're doing, especially now, while we've got so many technical issues to deal with.

I agree. The thing is, everytime we have a discussion about a problem poster, we start talking about some form of moderation. Which isn't in the Stompies' job descriptions, as far as I can tell.

I think whether or not we get moderators depends quite a bit on what happens with ME/Joss/etc. in the future, to be honest. If there are no ME shows on in the fall, we'll (probably) start shrinking towards a core of people who have been talking for several years, and the question of moderating will be mostly moot. But if Joss creates the biggest hit of the Fall '04 season or ME staffers become regular posters here, we may be dealing with a lot of new people, and the question may become more pressing.

For now, I say we leave it lie, since we've really only had this kind of problem twice. But if it becomes a regular thing, we might need to figure out a moderation policy like the one outlined by Fay just to save our sanity.

So Fay, considering that scrappy's (and I hate to keep using her name since I may be misremembering who said they sent e-mails) e-mail and in thread requests went ignored, do you think that she does give a damn about having caused distress?

For now, I say we leave it lie, since we've really only had this kind of problem twice. But if it becomes a regular thing, we might need to hold our noses and figure out a moderation policy like the one outlined by Fay, if only to save our own sanity.

Shit.

See, I'm not trying to bring on moderators. If we've got an inbuilt system where the community can issue an official notice that there's a problem via a stompy (which we have?), I thought what I was suggesting just made it that much cleaner & quicker, and with less moderaty decision-making on the part of the stompy.

If I'm suggesting making us into a moderated forum, I may have to go back and delete my posts. (Not that I would, because that's frustrating as hell for people, I know, but - shit.)

Undo it! Undo it!

Just to clear things up--I didn't email her privately. I posted my long message to her on (I think) UnAmerican. I considered sending it to her personally but it was a friendly suggestion rather than a warning, so I thought it would be best to do it publicly.

Heather, although I'm inclined to agree with you, I think we don't have to decide whether she gives a damn, or isn't capable of facing it, or anything else. That seems to be what opened up the speculation about her personal life. The issue for us (imo) is that she was involved in a kerfluffle, was called on it (more than once) and didn't respond. Now she's been given a polite notice. I don't expect her (at this point) to respond. I do think we have a right to not to have the same problem again.

the first post by Kat was very calm. It was as much of a question on procedure as anything else. The second post was by Jilli, only linking to the incidents in the Angel thread. The third post on the subject was in Zoe's defense, by connie. The fourth was by bitterchick, not sure if a warning was warrented but recognizing a problem. The fifth was by Nutty, correcting what she thought was a mistatement by connie. The sixth was by Victor, pointing the finger (nicely) at people who have objected to Zoe in the past.

I had read through them before but I looked at them again and you're right--things didn't get daunting until a little later.

Am I correct in thinking people have e-mailed privately? Not that it really changes my stance, but I do like to have my facts straight.

You're right Cindy. I shouldn't make assumptions about her feelings. I think I was trying to make a point that the gentle had been tried and soundly ignored.

I missed a bunch, so here's a catch up post:

I can understand how someone may feel like the situation was very intimidating, and the decks were stacked against them.

And getting a warning out of the blue, telling you that X number of unnamed Buffistas had complained about you wouldn’t?

I'm not remotely advocating a "four complaints and you're banned" kind of policy. I'm suggesting that making the first move towards warning be simpler

But it goes warning/suspension/banning, right? So a poster wouldn’t have any chance to defend herself until after the first formal step was taken.

I was trying to suggest something that was automatic, in which a protest from or about Jo(e) BrandNewPoster would carry the same weight as a protest from or about Jo(e) PostingSinceTheDawnOfTime

As I stated before, I think that your proposal would do just the opposite. It would radically disempower the newer posters simply through intimidation.

I think some of us want moderators, or "automatic" warnings, for the same reasons--it lets us "off the hook" from playing the meanies ourselves. We want the problem to go away or fix itself so that we don't have to feel like the bad guy. I find it a tad disengenuous, just as I find the endless handwringing unnecessary.

a protest from or about Jo(e) BrandNewPoster would carry the same weight as a protest from or about Jo(e) PostingSinceTheDawnOfTime

This is the case now. I mean, we've got more veteran posters than newbie posters simply by virtue of the fact that posting with any kind of regularity turns you into a veteran fairly quickly around here. But it's never been the case that newbie complaints are taken less seriously just because they're made by newbies.