Anya ,'Potential'
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 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.
But don't punish her just because she's annoying as hell and makes one want to fork his/her eyes out.
Why not?
Seriously, I think this is the main problem. Even though she does occasionally post things that are out and out offensive, so do other people. If she were someone who actually contributed to the board instead of posting incoherent or annoying posts, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
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 criteria would you use to judge whether or not a post was offensive, if not by the number of people who were offended by it?
Some will contend that filling a thread with incomprehensible babble that drives other users out is quite demonic.
Some might, but I don't agree, unless it's intentional trolling. I don't think we need to bend over backwards to accomodate everyone, but I don't want the quality of posts to be a determinant factor in demonic behavior. It's a slippery slope.
Wolfram---she's made tastless jokes about Chritianity and gays, which should have gotten her a warning right then and there, imo.
She's driving people batshit.
I am of the firm belief that her comments in regard to Theodosia's remarks about sticking a fork in her eye over seeing a spoiler were intentionally made so Zoe could get attention.
Because there is no way I believe that there is anyone who can figure out how to use a computer and not be able to understand that comment was a joke.
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.
No they can't. How do you suppose we decide that a post is offensive? and if you say consensus I will scream.