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.

Sorry for the serial.

Actually, IIRC, adding the time limit to the vote is up to msbelle.

I say, "yes" to the proposal. I'm okay with 48 hrs. instead of 24, because of the weekend stuff, as long as the warning happens after 10 people have said okay.

I'm cool with the six-month reset.

The 6 month period seems, to me, to be too long. I'd be more in favor of 2 months.

I think if the behavior warrants a warning, we have a right to expect a person to keep from doing it for six months. That's not so much to ask. Besides, the next step is a suspension, not a banning, and if, after in-thread attempts, discussion in Bureaucracy, a warning and a renewed (and clarified) opportunity to change whatever it is that's got folks so upset, a person is unable to keep from doing whatever-it-is for six months, then I think it shows a lack of consideration for the community. (Run-on sentence, much?)

Well, "whatever-it-is" is "offending someone," right? So theoretically, if someone gets a warning for, I don't know, calling me a poopyhead, and then two months later someone complains about them repeatedly posting spoilers in the show topics without whitefont, they'd still get suspended even if they'd been very good about not calling anyone a poopyhead.

It just seems to me that, if the suspension is for 2 months, we shouldn't have the walking-on-egshells period be THREE TIMES that length.

Well, "whatever-it-is" is "offending someone," right? So theoretically, if someone gets a warning for, I don't know, calling me a poopyhead, and then two months later someone complains about them repeatedly posting spoilers in the show topics without whitefont, they'd still get suspended even if they'd been very good about not calling anyone a poopyhead.

Frankly, yes. Because the second thing would have been followed with inthread corrections and the whole 9 too. That's a pattern of disrespectful behavior IMO.

Actually, IIRC, adding the time limit to the vote is up to msbelle.

Yeah, it's my call, but I want opinions. I may be power hungry, but I promise not to just throw in all my pet projects like Congress does (although everyone wear pink day would be good).

Galdalfe, how do you think you would have responded if you were confronted about one of your pissy posts in thread?(maybe this happened and I am unaware).

But, Gandalfe, it's not a walking-on-eggshells period. It's an Acting Right period. You can see that we, as a group, do not have a tendency to jump on people for every little thing.

it's not a walking-on-eggshells period. It's an Acting Right period.

Yes, this. Why is that so much to ask, especially after all the prior steps and discussion?