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.

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.

Quick aside -- should BitTorrent be in the FAQ? I know it's a tricky topic because of the legality issues, but it is pretty frequently asked about.

Are we getting away from warning/suspension/banning?

I'm confused. Do we want the only thing from the admins to be the official warning of "don't do this anymore or you'll be suspended." (only you know more polite).

Or are we going to a system of "hey! stop, you have one more chance or then you'll be warned again. After that you'll be suspended."

Quick aside -- should BitTorrent be in the FAQ? I know it's a tricky topic because of the legality issues, but it is pretty frequently asked about.

Probably not, for the legality issues and what not.

I prefer sticking with the warning/suspension/banning system we have, at least until there's a really compelling reason to change it. By the time it gets to a warning, the person has been told in-thread many times to cool it. It's not like it's out of the blue.

No, actually, it wouldn't.

Uh, what I was saying was that big policy changes might call for a vote, but administrative stuff like this doesn't. I think we're on the same side.

Uh, what I was saying was that big policy changes might call for a vote, but administrative stuff like this doesn't. I think we're on the same side.

I thought big policy changes (specific to that sort of policy) were also excluded... (no coffee, brain confused now.)

(Hell, the more I think about it, the more it makes my brain hurt.)

OK-- I am reiterating what several people have said, but

We have a system:

1. Polite in thread notes from anyone who feels so moved to the problem poster, politely pointing out the problem. This usually worked.

2. Warning from a Stompy (Official)

3. @nd Warning = Suspension

4. After Suspension, next warning = Banning.

I don't think we need to discuss the system. It would work if:

1. We KNEW when an official warning would come, instead of trying to get a consensus on it.

2. The Official Warning had a text.

Am I right? Is anyone seriously considering changing THIS system? Our problem is that some of us Buffistas think that the only reason for an offical warning is an egregious breach of conduct, like spamming us with ChristianDollarStore stuff, and others feel that a systematic and repeated disregard of our basic rule (politeness) is enough to get a warning. I am not sure how to solve this, because either way people will get angry. People feel very strongly about both things.

What is killing us is this hashing it out... People get mad, leave the thread, get frustrated by the process, think people are ganging up on them, and it turns into a public flogging because of this.

On #1., I'm coming more and more down on the side of "Enough already. Systemic disregard is warnable."

On #2., yes. Boilerplate we can pull up at will. No inventing warnings on the fly, no having to draft. Boilerplate warning text.