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.

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

I am SO against anonymous complaints. If someone's that big of a bully that they'll smack you around for complaining, they'll be banned all the quicker, won't they?

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

Jess you're misunderstanding me. All I'm saying is that we need more than just a 10-people-complained-official-warning-time criteria. There are other considerations.

And askye, I'm not discounting the gay or christianity postings. I'm saying that she should be warned/punished when she violates CS (like she may have done with those postings) but not when she just annoys people with the rest of her postings.

Jesse and Jess explain what I meant. I think the system questions should be resolved before another situation arises.

I don't care if anything else happens to any particular poster at this time.

Wolfram:

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

Well, in light of every single registered person getting a vote or getting one post to express their argument I think we will need a simplified system.

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

No, but there are people (Edit: In other fora, not here AFAIK) who will insult you whenever you enter a conversation, send you nasty emails, and generally make it no fun for you to be part of a community. I wouldn't say "yes, X deserves a warning" if X was like this, because frankly, life is nicer if you're low on X's radar.

An email option also is better for lurkers or posters who aren't bureau regulars.

Nutty's outline looks perfect to me.

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?

this is another reason I wasn't sure how to bring up my problems with Zoe.

I think complaints should be made publicly so that it's out in the open and people can see.

Mostly I don't think anyone who posts is going to freakass stalker on anyone for saying they have a problem.

All I'm saying is that we need more than just a 10-people-complained-official-warning-time criteria. There are other considerations.

I don't understand what the other consideration is. Surely someone's being offensive if they're offending people, right?

I dunno if I'm one of the bullies you are referring to, Lyra Jane. But in thread, when someone says something, I'll usually either try to reframe what I was saying or I'll apologize. I'm not saying people should not be offensive - cause I'm sure I bristle and offend.

But I am saying that if someone is offended and it is made public to a poster and the poster is dismissive, flippant, rude, unapologetic... well we have a problem.

My issue with her behavior is that it causes turmoil in the community as a whole. Period. 'Cause that's where it is effecting me.

I started this convo with a question about whether or not low-level irritation is warnable and it seems that's where we are hung up. Remove Zoe from the conversation. If someone irritates a number of people (insert your number here) and they've been asked to modify posting behavior repeatedly to no avail (irrespective of whether or not they are capable - and everyone who is going to say it's pointless because she is a capable, remember this is the abstract) - Do we do anything about it? If the answer is no, then I think some of us may be rethinking our habits and posting styles.