Lilah ,'Conviction (1)'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
on the how long to 10 secondeds front.
I like the idea that the warning goes as soon as 10 is reached. If that is 10 minutes, then so be it, if it takes all 48 hours because it's a weekend or holiday or my birthday or somesuch, then that is cool too. But no 10 by 48 hours 1 minute and tough titties, no warning at that moment as a result of the instance or build up of instances brought up.
What's the downside to 48 hours, especially if one usually gets the support in a fraction of that?
I was going to say that the downside is if we get locked into some idea of having to spend two days processing every incident of bad behavior, which would kill me. But then I saw this:
I like the idea that the warning goes as soon as 10 is reached. If that is 10 minutes, then so be it, if it takes all 48 hours because it's a weekend or holiday or my birthday or somesuch, then that is cool too. But no 10 by 48 hours 1 minute and tough titties, no warning at that moment as a result of the instance or build up of instances brought up.
This I like. You have 48 hours to get ten people to agree, but the discussion can stop after the ten weigh in.
However, here's a question: What if ten people say yes, send the warning, but twenty say no, I don't think so? We warn anyway?
What if ten people say yes, send the warning, but twenty say no, I don't think so?
I run away and hide. But seriously. I don't know that there's a good answer to this question. 10 people are upset, 20 people think they're overreacting...I'm not sure how we handle that.
That's sort of why I don't see discussion ending at 10. 4 will say yes warn, 2 might come in and say no don't. The original 4 may clarify and argue their points, and some will join in on either side, everyone clarifying and trying to sway.
What about a percentage, say a majority of posters in Bureau have to be for warning?
I'm afraid that then you're edging close to voting.
I chose 10 because I think that if 10 people are offended there is a problem, even if 20 aren't offended.
We can never stop people from discussing - and that is the great thing about a warning, it doesn't keep the poster being warned from posting and voicing their side. It just says, a volume of the community that we have deemed to be sufficient has issue with the tone in one or many of your messages and your refusal to address that issue has led to this warning. We handle stuff in this board This way, please adhere to it. Thanks.
Are ten offended Buffistas important to the community as a whole? That, I think, is the question.
If they are, then 1 or 20 or 290 unoffended posters don't matter.
I think I may be hanging in the corner with msbelle for quite some time.
Well, given all the discussion in Bureau over the weekend, it seems safe to say that people will not do this lightly - i.e., by the time it's suggested, many people who have been upset and/or offended for a while will be able to second it - it's not as if the suggester is going to have to drum up support or anything.
[Sorry if that makes no sense - brain not functioning ATM]