She reregistered with a different name at some point due to password difficulties, and wanted to stay with her new name.

She forgot her password to the Zoe Finch account, and reregistered as Zoe Ann.

Ah. So, general cluelessness. OK.

In my experience, on a board like this, someone with two profiles is either A) In Charge, or B) Up To No Good.

Bitterchick has two logins, and as far as I know, she's neither. I mean, I agree allowing multiple logins has been a problem for other fora, but we seem to tolerate it and it's never been an issue thus far.

Actually, quite a few people have two logins, mostly for Sang Sacre purposes. It's neither against any policy nor a big deal.

Actually, quite a few people have two logins, mostly for Sang Sacre purposes.

Ah. My bad.

I do think there's a difference between a second login a known poster uses for specific purposes (e.g., Sang Sacre, if someone wanted to keep her posts about fic under the name she wrote with) and someone using a second login to wreak havoc in some way. But the havoc-wreaking thing would probably fall under our rudeness/demon-y behvaior clause anyhow.

Scrappy also has an at-work login because of password issues.

But the havoc-wreaking thing would probably fall under our rudeness/demon-y behvaior clause anyhow.

Right. (And in that hypothetical case, I assume all a person's ids would be disabled.)

I want to say that this whole Zoe thing is quite annoying. I don't agree with Allyson that she does this deliberately, but I do find her posts to be incoherent, incomprehensible and otherwise completely inappropriate to whatever ongoing discussion she interrupts. That alone does not merit a warning. I also didn't read the deleted post that got her in so much trouble this time around but I don't think that her snootiness is in and of itself punitive-worthy. I think her gay sex is icky post was an opinion better left unsaid, but her Christianity bashing was much more offensive and may have merited a warning. And at the time I had asked her to delete or otherwise modify the offensive post of her own accord, and she never did.

If this were IRL I would be nice to her when I saw her but stop inviting her to parties and if necessary screen her phone calls with caller i.d. Unfortunately you can't do that here at least until the Marcie filter becomes operational. Her presence has become the most persuasive argument I've seen yet for the Marcie.

Needed to throw in my two cents.

Warning: This post is a huge meara, some of it may be seen as rehashing stuff that has already been acted on, so feel free to skip. I wanted to get it out and I do it so rarely.

I think the whole board might be better served if warnings were not seen as THE END OF THE WORLD so that they could be meted out when deemed appropriate without a 2000 post debate on the fate of the Buffistas.

Have I mentioned my love of rational thought and specifically Burrell?

My post about the head injury was designed to make her leave, yo. I wanted her to cry, feel stupid, and leave. Forever. And then, I would have been a great big meanie, but really, the Angel thread would be a better place.

And this I could totally do without. It is why we have community standards. IMO both Zoe and the rude responders or rude baiters warranted warnings If I snap, I need to be warned. By which I mean…

people shouldn't have to ask (or be afraid to ask) for the rules to be enforced. The rules should be self-enforcing.

And that’s the problem isn’t it? We have them, but no clear procuedure for enacting them.

It can be irritating, but I can't see what good a warning would do in either case.

With that argument no one would get warned. It will either make her realize that this is not the place for her unless she can self-regulate her posts better and she will do so. Or, she won’t get it, will continue and the community guidelines we have set in place will be in motion – meaning she will get a 2 month suspension. or what Kat said:

Because it's the first step. And because it's a fair start. If she isn't warned then she has no way of knowing the extent to which her behavior irritates.

If nothing is done, then it's a bit of a smack in the face of people who are upset and feeling irritated and feeling like this person is being deliberately rude and upsetting (note: I'm not one of these people. I just don't like to see the community turmoil her posts can cause). If we don't say anything to this poster, how can we justifiably say anything in the future to other posters who are strange, off putting and unwilling to be part of the community?

If nothing is done why did we debate for 18 hundred years to establish standards and procedures? Do we really just like to hear ourselves talk that much?

And even if Zoe behaves this way because she is somehow incapable of adhering to CS, that doesn't mean she gets to violate CS with impugnity.

I think that ignoring disruptive behavior is a bad idea, as that behavior then becomes entrenched. It also tends to get worse over time. We've also seen that it tends to bring out the worst in ourselves.

other great points. MARCIE is not fully the answer. I doubt we will ever have 100% agreement on what is offensive or what needs a warning, but we can’t just say anything goes then and use a filter.

What if someone had a disability that made civil discourse not always possible? I think it would be unkind (and by people who CAN do better) to harp on it.

I don’t think this would be the community for them. I really don’t want to be a welcome mat for people who post incoherently or who are unable to realize when they are out of line.

You know what. You're right. Obviously I'm the one in the wrong here. I'm the one who is Orwellian for asking that the CS be enforced. I've exceeded my Bureaucracy posts for life and now am certainly out of equilibirum with Laura, my posting Doppelganger. And on that, I'm done with Bureaucracy.

SO ANGRY! We talked ad naseum before this board was set up. We agreed on wording for standards and a system of dealing with people who unsettle the community. WE DID! Do we need to modify them? maybe. But until then I have a HUGE issue with making the people who want to play by and enforce the rules the bad guys. People who can’t just tolerate everything and listen to everybody are not the problem.

There is a gap, but should we bridge it, or is it small enough that we can hop over it? I don't know the answer to this, but I think this is the area where we need to focus our discussion. My next post will toss out an idea on bridging the gap, but I'm not convinced we need to, and I think deciding whether or not we bridge it is more important than the "how" of it, so I'm not including the idea here.

If someone is asked to modify their posting tone or style or content repeatedly and by multiple posters - and they don’t - then I think there needs to be a mechanism to have an official board warning/notice/whatever. I don’t think there needs to be a new type of official communication added to the mix. Adding another step really does draw out the process even longer. Hundreds of posts in Bureau a day with the community blood pressure getting higher and higher is not what I want. We’re gonna end up with a Bureau thread with only the most patient of posters and those who like to debate. honestly.

After the whole mieskie thing, we are a bit gun-shy about anything that even touches on the idea of suspension or banning. We learned a lot from that incident, but the wounds aren't quite healed.

I guess I am different than most of the board on this issue. It just makes me want to act faster and be a giant stickler for the procedures that already exist. What I hated about the previous issue was the never-ending talking about it.

and ita sums it up much better than I have.

If we have community standards and a method for enforcing them, then we should. If violating the community standards is fine, then let's change them.

I started this discussion wondering How Much Is Too Much, i.e. do cumulative, unmitigated offenses ever add up to something actionable?

I think yes.

So, we send a warning. I don't think that's such a big deal. It's not a banning. Really, it's not even close. But, if we ever want to ban anyone, ever in the future, for anything we have to be