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?
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.
msbelle, I like this.
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.
Warnings only happen when people are called on something and don't settle it themselves, in fact, refuse to settle it themselves, so this doesn't bother me.
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.
Right, okay. I wasn't trying to argue whether that was a good or a bad thing, actually, just trying to make clear that someone could indeed refrain from doing whatever got them warned and still get booted.
Yeah, it's my call, but I want opinions.
Well then, to restate, I don't want time limits added to this vote, because I want a process first.
