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
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.
Jim, if you can participate in the Un-American thread and still manage to ignore her, you have much better mental filters than I do.
cereal?
That last by me was kind of an X-post with Paul and askye.
I think what we issued to Zoe yesterday, has to remain without teeth, because that's how it was written and that's the spirit in which ita sent it.
However - if I'm reading correctly, and since the time of the toothless thingy, there are now redoubled efforts at being annoying (I haven't seen them, I've been elsewhere), then since we already sent the toothless thing, I think we're looking at an official warning this time. I would hope everyone would agree.
Was the Official Stompy Notice sent yesterday or Saturday? I say we give it a few days, and in the meantime try extra hard to NFTEC. ("A few days" is pretty vague because my feelings on this matter are pretty weak. I'm trying to think in general terms rather than about this specific situation, and it's not easy.)
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?
If we want to warn based on before-yesterday (i.e. before-notice) materials, then too long is never enough. If we have new, last-24-hours offenses that you all think are warn-worthy, let's go ahead and see citations, and go forward with the system. That's how the system works.
(Personally, I haven't got through all the threads yet, but I haven't found anything really warn-worthy yet. I'm trying not to jump immediately to the worst conclusion, although I may end up there eventually.)
Fair enough. Sorry if I overreacted.
You didn't. Here have some cookies. And by cookies I mean porn. And by porn I mean monkey.
I don't think there's any trolling, here - it's about a lack of comprehension of certain norms of behaviour.
But why should we have to put up with the repeated and persistent failure to conform to board etiquette?
