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

Sophia Brooks "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Apr 14, 2003 10:31:29 am EDT This post is what I see as our biggest task.

What does it take to get a warning? What starts the process. We need it to be set and I think we need it done quickly.

oh my dear heavens. i haven't done any work today (and believe me, i have work to do) b/c i desperately wanted to be aware of all (or most) of what has been said here.

I think the boilerplate warning is good. i have no problem with warning her. i would be willing personally to try and engage with her one-on-one, and i may do that.

I think her gay sex is icky post was an opinion better left unsaid

I agree with what Wolfram said. I was expecting much worse than what I found when I saw that conversation. I personally don't agree that this is a good example of bad behavior on her part b/c

1) She made it clear, on request, that she was joking about consensual sex between male school boys.

2) She made it clear, repeatedly, that she personally found male/male sex distasteful, without making moral judgments about the matter.

3) She apologized for offending people.

There are certainly other instances where she has not responded to requests for clarification/apology.

I certainly understand why gay people would be offended by her phrasing that gay sex is squicky, but I wanted to state that this gay person doesn't, since it is an oft cited example. The 'jacksy' was more an issue of appropriate language than offending gay people, IMHO.

t runs away from hornets nest she stirred up again

I submit my fervent prayers that we resolve this issue as happily as possible for all involved, and can get on with the important business of obsessing about (insert favorite foamy jossverse character here).

I think her gay sex is icky post was an opinion better left unsaid, but her Christianity bashing was much more offensive

Ok, can we not do this? Both comments were offensive, period. I don't think we need to go into which one was worse and for what reasons.

About things being more or less offensive? There is no such thing as objectively offensive. Something is offensive if people are offended. People were offended. I think the question is, how many people need to be offended before the community acts.

I'm going to be blunt and possibly rude, but at this point I'm all talked out of lots of wrods....

What makes Zoe so much more than the rest of us that she can get away with constant eitquette violations, piss off dozens of people and yet there are those of you who still want the community as whole to bend over backwards and accomodate her for as long as she's around.

Why does she get that kind of consideration and all the people whose enjoyment of Buffistas.org has plummeted because of her are being told to suck it up and deal?

Yes. It doesn't matter which one I thought was offensive, or not, or which was more offensive. People were offended, period, and it's that sort of upset we have the community standards for. Which also goes for the language used to express any opinion.

I think the question is, how many people need to be offended before the community acts.

I think 10. If someone requests an official warning in here, within a day there needs to be 10 people who post in agreement for the warning to go out.

There - I stuck my neck all out and got specific. ready.

What makes Zoe so much more than the rest of us that she can get away with constant eitquette violations, piss off dozens of people and yet there are those of you who still want the community as whole to bend over backwards and accomodate her for as long as she's around.

She shouldn't get away with etiquette violations. But unfortunately her posting style (constant serials, aimless ramblings, inappropriate bwahs, incoherency etc.) is what I think pisses almost everyone off and there's nothing that can be done about that. Nothing.

So if she violates CS, then do what's necessary. But don't punish her just because she's annoying as hell and makes one want to fork his/her eyes out.