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.

My own personal offensiveness gauge which keeps me from saying offensive things, for one.

And why wouldn't 10 other people's personal offensiveness gauges be just as valid?

She seems to be using the PF Angel thread as her own personal playground at the moment.

Some posters are just big fucking bullies, and you don't want to publically complain about them.

I don't think anyone here is gonna beat you down on the schoolyard.

Said I was staying away. But am a liar about that.

A troll, to me, is a person who enters a thread, subverts the conversation at hand and consistently and insistently tries to make it about them (like me in natter!), without giving a shit about what is going on with others or how their words impact others.

I've been pretty offended that people are willing to say, "Oh. Poor Zoe. I think she's clueless so we should just let it go." Dude, when the people who are defending you are using their own diagnoses of your mental state to justify your behavior We Have Gone Somewhere Really Ugly.

I was at PF yesterday to look for a post I made about Angel. It was still postable there (hence my question last night). Check out the last few posts in the thread. Trollishness or not?

massive Xpost.

If I may quote Jesse from a while back..

IMO, we don't need consensus around warnings. If we agree that making other people feel bad is wrong, not everyone has to feel bad before there's a problem.

I agree with this. I think 10 sounds like a good number. If only one or two people have a problem they need to learn to deal, but if 10 people feel bad we all have a problem.

xpost with Kat for that nice equilibrium feeling

I would like it if people could email stompies at a specific address as well as posting here.

This bothers me. If the community isn't discussing the matter, how does a Stompy get a consenus that there is an issue? Why should they have to decide if the email raises a valid issue or is just someone trying to stick it to a poster they don't like?