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.

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

I'm all for breaking certain rules in favor of other ones! Or something. Maybe I should reconsider being a bureaucrat.

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

I answered in Natter to avoid nattering here. And yet, this post still natters on.

Anyway, I was trying to support what Msbelle (and just about everybody, it seems) said better than I -- We should vote on this policy so that the decision comes from the community rather than just the hard-working Stompies. We should all (of course) consider all of the implications in each proposal when voting for a general policy, rather than focusing on this particular instance. There are some good proposals out there.

I also think that we may want to take up gradation in enforcement to decide whether a warning is just a warning, or whether there are different levels of warning. But that might be unnecessary.

I've been trying to write this damn post for an hour or so. Strangely enough, the words I was looking for came from Zoe's mouth.

I don't understand how having squicky feelings is any better or worse than Mmmm I'd like some of that feelings. It's just another point on the spectrum.

Zoe made ONE gay joke which she then explained (after multiple requests) as being about consensual sex between equals. Using that and her personal non-preference for male/male sex to equate her as homophobic and offensive is disingenuous, to say the least.

Gay bashing is a flashpoint, a volatile topic. I'm gay and I think male/male action is seven different kinds of foamy, but I support anyone's right to say that they don't, even on the Buffista board.

Complain about her incoherence, her serial posting, her rudeness, or her total avoidance of dealing with consequences, but I strongly disagree with "gay is icky" being used as a shorthand for why she needs disciplining.

I am personally horrrified by Allyson's posts to Zoe, even more so because she was pretending to be nice. Allyson later admitted that her intention was to chase Zoe off. That's not acceptable to me.