Don't be sorry, Jessica. It was the third in a series of posts about hating how the forum was empty, and I read it that she was pissed that we were all "hiding". The link: [link] may clear it up. Or probably not.

FWIW, I took Zoe's "zealots" comment to mean that we are fanatical about Buffy/Angel (the ostensible reason we came together in the first place). I agree her comment was unfortunate in light of the current activity. I support her getting a warning, so I am not a Zoe-apologist.

But, remember, we are the people who have a FAQ about whether or not we're a cult. We are the people who filk and recap and analyze to bits the ME universes. We can be zealous in our love for the show.

Perhaps that is all Zoe meant.

ok - since no one has answered me, I am moving forward.

I propose that we vote on an automatic warning system as follows:

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. Any user-complainant (does not need to be same person) posts in Bureaucracy outlining complaint and linky citations, and requests a Warning.
D. At least 10 other users in 24 hours second the need for a Warning.
E. Stompy sets forth a Warning over email and in Bureaucracy.

A side issue that boilerplate language for this email and post be drawn up.

What about my obvious smacking around of Zoe? Shouldn't I have been warned? I was flaming her, and I meant to do it. Where be my spanking?

In general, I think we tend to let one or two things go by, in the hope that they were abberations. When you said some other offensive (to me) things around the voting, and whatnot, I brought it up in this thread, and planned to ask that you be warned if you didn't chill out. Which you did.

I do think there's a balancing act -- someone's value to the community gets weighed against their offensiveness, if you know what I mean. And I do have some internal conflict about that, but I think it's just human nature. I mean, really, you've worked your ass off for us, so you get more of a pass than someone whose best-case scenario is that her posts are mystifying.

I'll second msbelle's proposal.

In general, I think we tend to let one or two things go by, in the hope that they were abberations.

I'm never doing this again. Call 'em fast and call 'em early.

msbelle, does it need to be the same complainant who makes the request in thread as makes the request here.

Justkim, I don't mind the zealot part. Hell. I'm a zealot about a fair number of things. But vengeful?

It did give me a new tag though.

Also, this experience is positive insofar as I'm finding all sorts of agreement with others with whom I normally have divergent opinions.

FWIW, I took Zoe's "zealots" comment to mean that we are fanatical about Buffy/Angel

But, remember, we are the people who have a FAQ about whether or not we're a cult. We are the people who filk and recap and analyze to bits the ME universes. We can be zealous in our love for the show.

Perhaps that is all Zoe meant.

I'd like to believe that. But why "vengeful," then?

ok - since no one has answered me, I am moving forward.

What am I, chopped liver?

On edit:

Nice job delineating policies, too. I also think that we should vote on the scope & warning of the warnings, or whether the warnings should been graded for seriousness of offense and things like that.

In Matt's recap, he said:

And by "love," I mean "vengeful zealots."

I can imagine she thought it would be funny and cute.