I'd like to see number 4 be a lower number or a longer time period, in part - because of weekends, but I wouldn't vote it down just because of number 4.

I hate 24 hour windows. I'm mostly against anything less than or equal to 48 (weekend non-access), but think that 48 would be better than 24 in this case.

I mean, if it's all that egregious, the numbers will be made pretty damned quickly.

Deena, I'm thinking I sort of like your idea. I'd hate to think that, having gone bananas once, I had always to guard against going bananas for the rest of my Buffista life, or face an automatic suspension. I mean, I don't want to go bananas every month, but maybe 6 months?

I mean, we can forgive a lot in 6 months, right? And 6 months is long enough that a true troll and/or rage issues-poster won't survive that long without going on to the suspension/banning stage.

Otherwise I'm mostly in agreement with proposal and boilerplate, considering I helped compose both!

I think Deena means, "Does the counter get reset on offensive behavior?" which I agree is not included in the above proposal.

On the proposed procedure:
1. Try to resolve in thread. Of course.
2. Post in thread it’s time for Bureaucracy. Makes sense.
3. Outline complaint in Bureaucracy and request warning. Yep.
4. 10 other users agree within 24 hours. Seems reasonable.
5. Stompy sets forth warning via email and in Bureaucracy. OK

I like it. Having a procedure will be easier for me personally than floundering around with the should we or shouldn’t we debate. If 10 members feel another member is violating community standards a warning should be issued. It is not a ban, or a prison sentence. It is just a warning.

Also, I think the 2 month period was previously established as policy and seems good to me.

Peace y’all, I am going to go distract myself with the VCD that just popped out of my computer.

I can live with 48 hours.

I would totally get behind a 6-month warning period. No problems in 6 months - woohoo you're all good. Anything warning level or above in the 6 months and you are in suspension-ville.

Thanks for splainin' me. I went off to try to catch up in other posts. I took an hour in bureacracy and I was trying to deal with a whiny baby at the same time. That could explain why it took so long to catch up in one thread, now that I think of it.

Yes, I just meant that I'd like the clock re-set at some point, and 6 months seems reasonable. So that one warning at month 1, if no other problems, then not suspension at 6 months but another warning.

I have a headache, so, basically, what you all said.

sorry, cereal - also fine with 48 hours, or even 72, but not longer.

I think I'm just gonna nod vigorously at whatever msbelle posts.

48 hours = good.

6 months gets you a reset = good

My only reason for wanting a shorter time period is that I don't think we need enough time for everyone to weigh in -- we just need to find out if we have enough concerned people to warrent the warning.