'Jaynestown'
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
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.
No they can't. How do you suppose we decide that a post is offensive? and if you say consensus I will scream.
Come sit by me, msbelle. After your head explodes, you start to enjoy the grey matter patterns on the wall. It's like watching clouds everytime some new goes 'splody.
These things cannot be easily defined and quantified.
No, not easily, but I do think the comfort level will be improved if we make the effort.
Can we just wait 'til it happens again?
If someone else feels it's happening right now, at a level of seriousness that needs to be dealt with officially, then cite the posts and threads that offend you (the person who makes gives the cite) and ask for an official warning.
If not, is all this speculating doing us any good at all?
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?
My own personal offensiveness gauge which keeps me from saying offensive things, for one.
Come sit by me, msbelle. After your head explodes, you start to enjoy the grey matter patterns on the wall. It's like watching clouds everytime some new goes 'splody.
I think I see a squirrel in mine!
No, not easily, but I do think the comfort level will be improved if we make the effort.
Mine won't.
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.
10 is okay, but I would like it if people could email stompies at a specific address as well as posting here. Some posters are just big fucking bullies, and you don't want to publically complain about them.
Cindy, the problem is that we still haven't really decided when a person gets an official warning. When one person asks for it? More? How many? Etc.
I'd love to find a way to not have to have these interminable discussions every single time something comes up. So a theoretical discussion should be able to save us some time later.
A big part of me agrees with you, Cindy, but part of me also wants to have a system in place before the next blow up so that it can be dealt with smoothly and painlessly.
And unfortunately, I don't see any way to do that without speculation.
I think 10 people is a good number of people who need to speak up (in here, clearly stating "I am in favor of a warning being issued") before a warning is issued.
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.
As a side comment: while we were over at PF, I filtered Zoe's posts. I don't know how many other people did, but I noticed that the "This post has been filtered" messages started increasing, to the point where (in the Angel thread) I saw an entire page of them. I think enough people had her filtered that she wasn't getting any response, so she started posting even MORE to try and get attention.
Friday, after this discussion had started, she posted something in the Angel thread along the lines of "Oh-oh, they're catching on, better say something quick". AFTER various people had mentioned to her that she was being discussed in Bureaucracy.
Maybe she's not a malicious troll, but in my view she still IS a troll.