My personal opinion is that the current policies are perfectly fine. The problem is simply that we (collective Borg-like "we") are so reluctant to actually put those policies in practice in the few cases where it was warranted.

(Or, what askye said).

(This is a serious question. I'm seeing what look like redoubled efforts to annoy.)

Wolfram, glad to see your enthusasim for the site, really.

The point of suspension is to get someone to see that --yes, their behavious is that unacceptable and that, no it won't be tolerated here. It's to encourage them to change or leave. Because if they can't change then we don't want them here.

Wolfram, I don't want this to come across as snippy, but honestly, my reaction to the above is something like screaming horror.

It's not snippy.

I'm sorry you disagree with the policy we have in place, but we cannot stand to revist every policy every time someone new joins the board and disagrees with them.

I do, but I didn't intend to ask that the policy be revisited or changed. Since I'm new, I reserve the right to comment on policies that were instituted before I got here. That's all. Feel free to disregard, and move on.

How long is long enough to wait when you know that the unofficial notice/intervention has done as much good as pissing into the wind?

Well, lessee, how long has it been? Because I agree about the redoubled, and apparently quite deliberate, efforts.

Thirded.

Edit: On the efforts to annoy, and not in any sort of official voting sense, just that I think it's happening too.

I'm pro-warning. I saw a lot of hesitating about issuing one, because (as people stated at the time), if a poster doesn't heed a warning, eventually s/he'll be suspended. And while for egregious errors, this is fine, some folks had problems with it for posts that just annoyed. So, despite being pro-warning, Nutty and I suggested a compromise, a warning without teeth (that was used in Zoe's case) because I think most people want annoying behavior to cease, but can't agree that annoying behavior rises to the level where a warning is what is needed.

I figured adding something without teeth, (which we wouldn't be required to use when the etiquette breaches are serious) was a compromise that could side-step the kind of disagreement in philosophy we saw this weekend between say, connie and victor on one side, and Allyson and Plei on the other (with say, Trudy and Fay in the middle).

I don't care if we add something without teeth or not. I'm just as happy with the official warnings, but only if we start to feel comfortable in issuing them when they're called for. Since defining "called for" seems to be the issue that's most tearing us apart, that's why the compromise was suggested, but I personally have no need for it, and would be just as satisfied if offical warnings were issued.

Since I'm new, I reserve the right to comment on policies that were instituted before I got here. That's all. Feel free to disregard, and move on.

Fair enough. Sorry if I overreacted.

Yeah, I went to Angel and didn't think much of it since, for me, there were only 20 or so unread posts. Almost all of those were Zoe serial posting.

I would also like to note that by now she has to be aware of what's going on and she hasn't come here to make any kind of defense or explanation.

I want to argue very strongly against further action on this. I've skimmed a lot of this dicusssion, and I find it unpleasant verging on bullying. If a poster annoys you, ignore them. I don't think there's any trolling, here - it's about a lack of comprehension of certain norms of behaviour. Which isn't, IMO, sufficient reason to get official with someone. Just....let it go. We're getting to a point where the discussion and the remedy are so much worse than the cause, that they're doing more harm than good.