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]

I can't imagine a scenario where 10 of my fellow members were upset that would find 20 of us thinking a warning was overkill. If my fellows are upset I am also upset. 10 people calling for a warning is an indication to me of a real problem.

xposty of course

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.

Yeah, I think you're right.

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.

Depends on how seriously you see a warning. The fact that it's one warning and then a suspension is what makes me feel nervous about this. If it were more, then I would absolutely be fine with a warning for ten offended people even if the majority felt that the statement wasn't offensive, because if we're going to have a board where it's not okay to offend people and then not apologize when called on it we may as well go all the way. Lowest common denominator. (And I'm so easily offended that I'm not easily offended, if that makes any sense. I squash down feelings generated online with wild abandon, because I've been through one too many meta conversations about them and on average they don't seem to help.)

The 6 month period seems, to me, to be too long. I'd be more in favor of 2 months. I, for example, have had a couple of bitchy periods in the last few months, times when I've pissed off several people (maybe up to 10, but hey, amnesty!) but have, with those exceptions, been, well, maybe not the model poster, but certainly not that bad. , even if I do use runon sentences. However, I don't think (hope) that, even if I had pissed enough people off both times, I'm bad enough for the 2nd step of the process.

I think that the vote should probably include the timeframe the warning is in effect for, tho.

Edited to add actual content.

Actually can that be a different thing? For me this policy is too important to have the time limit muddying it.