I prefer clever wording. But it is an offical warning and on your permanent record.
I seen you without your clothes on before. Never thought I'd see you naked.
Mal ,'Trash'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Laura - Apr 14, 2003 8:07:06 am PDT #9664 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
Cindy - Apr 14, 2003 8:08:43 am PDT #9665 of 10001
Nobody
Like I said, I wasn't doing an official permanent record type warning. I got confused as to what people were discussing.
(I may have skimmed)
Jessica - Apr 14, 2003 8:08:45 am PDT #9666 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Honestly, if I recieved Cindy's warning, I would have no clue what it meant.
Cindy - Apr 14, 2003 8:09:45 am PDT #9667 of 10001
Nobody
I'm deleting it now, because, again it wasn't a draft of a warning.
P.M. Marc - Apr 14, 2003 8:10:46 am PDT #9668 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
We have a system that says misbehavers get a warning letter from the stompies. If we wanted to change the system so that we would no longer have a warning, that would require a vote.
No, actually, it wouldn't. The voting ballot (initiating voting) specifically left out that sort of thing as non-voting items.
askye - Apr 14, 2003 8:11:42 am PDT #9669 of 10001
Thrive to spite them
What ita and Ple were saying is that there is no standarized wording for a warning at all.
At least that's how I understood it.
§ ita § - Apr 14, 2003 8:13:39 am PDT #9670 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
What I sent Zoe wasn't a warning. Some of the delay in my sending it was because I didn't know what to write. I made some stuff up, but really, I thought that was what Cindy was composing. Since her text said nothing about the meaning of the warning, and that another warning would result in suspension.
Cindy - Apr 14, 2003 8:14:19 am PDT #9671 of 10001
Nobody
kewpie doll for ita
Thanks ita, that is what I was doing.
P.M. Marc - Apr 14, 2003 8:15:50 am PDT #9672 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
What ita and Ple were saying is that there is no standarized wording for a warning at all.
Basically. Boilerplate warning text, she would be helpful. ita hasn't the bandwidth, I suck at drafting such things, and I don't know about the rest of the stompies, but there is probably a combo pack of the above.
I don't think it has to be, or even should be clever (though the clever ones were lovely), because it needs to be clear, concise, and serious over anything else.
Lyra Jane - Apr 14, 2003 8:17:09 am PDT #9673 of 10001
Up with the sun
It seems to me that when we're at the point of a note from a stompy, the poster in question has probably already heard 500 times from other posters that they're being annoying and, really, please, stop being annoying. The Stompy note should come across as being stronger than that.
I can see both sides on calling it the warning or calling it a pre-warning.