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.

And it's your prerogative to have not been offended by that. Personally, as upset as I was with the "gay is icky" remark, I was far more angered with her qualification that woman-to-woman was probably okay though.

Can we define pile-ons? Is it more than a number of people agreeing about something?

Not wanting to halt the flow of Miss Moveitalongpants's work, but:

It's kind of like the "I'm wearing a rubber glove on my head right now!" effect Fay has already outlined -- look at how quickly her hypothetical conversation goes from "uh, this is my weirdness" to "people who don't like this are the real freaks!"

I post that ita bugs me sometimes. Msbelle posts that ita bugs her too, and she thinks ita's stinky. Jesse says, yeah, ita stinks! and her momma dresses her funny! I come back and say, yeah, I agree with BOTH of you, and what's more, I'm gonna kick ita's ass!

That's a pile-on. I never ever would have posted that I would kick ita's ass to start with -- I was just saying that sometimes, she rubs me the wrong way sometimes. But the other people, intentionally or no, are egging me on and raising the stakes. Does that help?

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.

The thing that's especially fascinating to me about this (and I'm mostly using your post as a placeholder, smonster), is the subsequent conversation in here about how maybe she does have mental problems that make her unable to interact like a normal person -- and that was OK?

I was wondering the same thing, Jesse.

But the other people, intentionally or no, are egging me on and raising the stakes.

This is a valid point. Which is why, maybe, there needs to be a cooling off period. Like, someone says, "Okay this post really offended me and I want to discuss it." And either we talk about it right then and then take a break. Or we take a break and then talk about it. Maybe there needs to be a 24 hour moratorium on discussion before taking action. Give people a chance to cool down.

I post that ita bugs me sometimes. Msbelle posts that ita bugs her too, and she thinks ita's stinky. Jesse says, yeah, ita stinks! and her momma dresses her funny! I come back and say, yeah, I agree with BOTH of you, and what's more, I'm gonna kick ita's ass!

But if msbelle and Jesse believe their points, and you come to believe yours, what's the problem? If you don't believe yours, well, it seems like an odd case of peer pressure -- do we really see that a) as having happened, and b) a sufficient risk to proactively create procedures to avoid?