Er, I'm feeling foolish: I thought we didn't vote on matters relating to Stmpy procedure? Which was why I didn't word the original sketch as a proposal in the first place.

But if we do vote, and msbelle's proposal is legit, then I'll be a second second.

(I would like to amend the Laura-Nutty Warning Boilerplate Language at some later date, but I'll save that for Light Bulb.)

Kat, I went and read the rest of the PF posts, and am no clearer than when I began -- it all looks like stream of consciousness gibberish to me. Maybe someone should politely point out that the Angel thread isn't her blog, even when PF isn't being used? I really don't know.

Anyway.

I still think Nutty's system is pretty much the ideal one. I'm against backchannel for this.

hayden, my sweet. No one answered me about where we are, as a community, on taking voting proposals.

You seconded me before I typed up an official proposal. Of coursse, I t heart you for it.

Kat, I'd say no. I'll go re-word if it is a confusing.

I think that how we decide when someone gets a warning/suspension/ban is CLEARLY something that needs a formal discussion and vote. It's not like how we decide when there's a spoiler that needs to be whited out, or how we decide what to name a new thread.

Speaking of which, did we come to some agreement on Bureaucracy 2?

and am no clearer than when I began -- it all looks like stream of consciousness gibberish to me.

Yep. Sadly, true.

But is spamming stream of consciousness gibberish not trolling?

I'll be a third (or fourth?) second to msbelle's proposal. I don't think we're going to nail this down any other way.

But is spamming stream of consciousness gibberish not trolling?

True. She has a Web site, where she can have a blog for that. Hell, I'll gladly give her my one and only LJ code so she can have an LJ for that.

Where be my spanking?

Well, there was some spanking, but you enjoyed it.

Also, seconded, probably with massive xpost.

There are 6 seconds, that I counted. Please do what me done. Open light bulb and discuss this here no more.

- ms. moveitalongpants.

A. User-complainant has already tried to resolve the complaint on-thread, with no success.

And this has happened

B. User-complainant posts in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy.

As has this.

C. User-complainant posts in Bureaucracy outlining complaint and linky citations, and requests a Warning.

I think outlining the complaint without having to add links is better. I think you could add them if you wanted to strengthen your argument. But I think saying, "Look here's what has me upset." And and explanation of how A and B were followed.

And right here, before D is where I think the upsetting poster needs to come in and state their case. I understand that you can't make anyone post in their defense, but I think that's part of why this is getting so out of hand.

And we have used this method, or have gotten to step A before. It's just that it usually works, so we don't make a big deal out of it. It's not working now, so I think we proceed with the warning.

D. At least 10 other users in 24 hours second the need for a Warning.

I'm not even sure it needs to be 10 people in 24 hours. I think that if A-C has been done, and the problem poster continues without apologizing or explaining, you move to E. I think though, that I may feel this way because if it's gotten past C, there will be at least 10 upset posters asking for a warning.

E. Stompy sets forth a Warning over email and in Bureaucracy

And this should be where we are now. Are we saying the warning in E will have teeth or not? Because I think the in-thread requests and the invitation to B'racy is/are the warning without teeth.