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?

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

If you think someone is being a bully or being rude or something say it, ask them to change or stop or whatever.

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.

A thought: why does this have to be about punishment? As much as I love Buffistas, it will not injure anyone in a monetary or physical way to lose it. Emotion damage perhaps, but certainly not life-threatening.

Part of what makes a community is an intersection of ideas on what the community means/does/includes. A community made up of mice doesn't have to like or include a cat. This seems to me, issues of like/dislike aside, to be a case of someone who doesn't belong to the community through a failure to understand/embrace/share enough in common with the majority of posters to make a valid contribution.

I don't want to punish her, I want her to become a valid member of the community that doesn't upset a significant number of posters or for her to go someplace more appropriate. I don't care about motive or extenuating circumstances - so far in the manymany posts I've been through, there has been very little support form the angle of 'but I like her posts' - most of her support has been from the 'she hasn't broken any major rules IMO' or 'she's easy for me to ignore, let's all ignore her'.

I've seen a lot of otherwise tolerant people whose words I enjoy be very upset by her behavior. Frankly, they matter more to me than being absolutely inclusive of posters who don't contribute to the community. If that makes me an elitist schmuck, so be it, but I don't think admitting that "one of these posters is not like the others" and asking them to change or leave is any more than a practical measure. If anything, I think it's elitist to assume any individual would crumble to dust and die without access to our posts.

I realize this opens the whole can of worms about who decides when subjective standards has been broken, when does this become a popularity contest, etc. My sense is that enough people are upset, and enough different people are upset, to indicate incompatibility with the community at large.

I like the idea of 'if N, where N is agreed upon, posters complain about a poster', a warning should be given by stompies with a standard wording. I think most of the in-thread 'play nice' posts cover the gap, making the poster aware of people's problems and allowing them to discuss or apologize as need be. I agree that fast action is less painful and like the idea of sending formal requests for warnings backchannel, although I understand people's issues with this.

So. Theory.

When A User Needs A Warning.

A. User-complainant has already tried to resolve the complaint on-thread, with no success.
B. User-complainant posts in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy.
C. User-complainant posts in Bureaucracy outlining complaint and linky citations, and requests a Warning.
D. [Foo] number of other users second the need for a Warning.
E. Stompy sets forth a Warning over email and in Bureaucracy, see Boilerplate Language #1.
F. Everybody takes a nap!

Considering how averse we all are to actually dealing with our problems, I think there's no such thing as a slippery slope! Gar mentioned over the weekend that the [Foo] number should be high, as a restraint against wild and willynilly Warning, but I think a number like 10 suffices.

Does that not do the trick?

I agree, Jesse. I guess I'd rather talk about it in the purely hypothetical, but it's probably not possible to keep it purely hypothetical.

I'll shut up, because damned if I know.