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.

I'm with Plei, on both points.

Our site etiquette currently reads:

Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet. If you don't listen to the warning, you will be suspended for two months. And if you come back unreformed, you will be banned. Banning is rare and very much a last resort.

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.

That was my understanding too. I think a stompie may want to give a person an unofficial warning to help guide them and keep them from getting the OFFICIAL AND PERMANENT WARNING. I think this should be up to the discretion of the stompy based on the level of egregiousness.

And on the topic, I'm sure a consensus was reached as to the Warning/Suspension/Banning system long before my own registration, but I believe a two month suspension may be too long considering the initial point of this board which is to discuss recent episodes of BtVS, Angel and other M.E. related things. Two months can be a third of the television season. I personally think one month is a better length for suspension because it's a sufficient cooling off period, and should the offender learn his lesson, he doesn't need to miss a whole bunch of episode discussions. If he doesn't learn his lesson - ban. IJS.

I'm sure a consensus was reached as to the Warning/Suspension/Banning system long before my own registration

Yep. Before this board existed, in fact.

Over the weekend, I went from wanting a warning to being willing to compromise with an unofficial, no-black-mark notice/intervention, basically to avoid people feeling bad. Now I'm seeing a resurgence of people who are pro-warning.

Practically speaking, it would be kind of stinky if we went to warning now, having done the notice/intervention just a day ago. Unless we have a new, cited offense, we should go back to talking theoretically, yes?

I'm willing, as I said roundabout-wise last night, to sit down and work up a law document, based on what we have and have not decided in these 9,999 posts. I suppose I should go back to WX Bureaucracy too? That's where a lot of the original consenses were worked up. I'll need a few days and/or a few co-helpers, but with luck and finesse we can see what bases we've covered, what's still not covered or was never consensed about, and what gaps to fill.

One of those gaps being "Exactly How To Phrase A Warning". And assembling the Three Whoops I Mean Two Stone Tablets of Buffista Law, and publicizing them, will decrease the amount of confusion and procedural argument on this thread. I hope.