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.

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.

Well, here's the subjective deal. What constitutes "demon-like" behaviour. Some will contend that filling a thread with incomprehensible babble that drives other users out is quite demonic.

The site ettiquette says:

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.

No, it's not specific. We had a whole lot of discussion about that and decided that you couldn't get specific enough to cover all possible violations of community standards.

My feeling is that by ignoring repeated requests to modify her behavior, she's violating community standards. She's making me not want to visit threads. Me, the biggest time-waster in the world. She's clearly upsetting askye just as much.

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.

Please no. Let's not pursue this number. Honestly I think the behavior needs to be judged by more than just how many people were offended, but include factors like, was the post offensive, what's the context, what's the follow-up, and what was the apparent intent of the poster. These things cannot be easily defined and quantified.