part of me really gets what Heather says, and then part of me sees that without everything spelled out, we basically don't have a real policy.

I'm not sure everyone gets it, but the idea of going back to bureau and opening a disussion on
1) how long warnings stay in effect
2) what constitutes moving a warning to a suspension (cause this is next to come up, mark my word)
makes me want to pull each and every one of my hairs out.

I'm not sure everyone gets it, but the idea of going back to bureau and opening a disussion on

1) how long warnings stay in effect

2) what constitutes moving a warning to a suspension (cause this is next to come up, mark my word)

makes me want to pull each and every one of my hairs out.

Are the time limits really a deal breaker for a big number of people?

I think shoving it all into one vote could make this discussion and vote far more difficult than it has to be.

You can propose it in B. for the next discussion and vote, right?

It probably is at least worth discussing.

Mmmmm . . . . I think we need to wait for the outcome of this one before we do it, as it's fairly predicated on what the policy is.

you know what? I went and looked at my proposal and there is a lot going on there - 4 steps and lots of blahblah for someoen who gripes about it. I think Heather is right.

The length of the warning and what constitutes moving from warning to suspension would logically all be in one proposal.

We shouldn't discuss it here and now, but I strongly encourgae someone to develop on their own what they think that proposal would look like and then pop it in Bureau as soon as this vote is over.

- ms. reallykeepitmovingalong,youhavenoidea.

I worry a bit about ten people mobbing someone unpopular. Could it be modified so that if an equal number of people to those offended, found the complaint not only wrong but unfair then no warning? In others words the bar is ten people, and a lower number than whatever you get finding it totally unfair. If the "this iwas offensive peole" don't at least outnumber the "you are picking on the poor thing" people, then is a warning really justified?

I think the time limits are not a big deal. I do like the idea that the clock on a warning eventually gets reset. And in terms of occasional outburst, usually if you have an outburst and apologize no one even thinks about escalating to warnings. I think "I was under stress. I screwed up. What I said was wrong sorry" gets a lot of slack - at least in my personal experience as someone who has screwed up on occasion.

I honestly don't think any one will run to bureaucracy and complain for someone who has a short period - even of repeatedly screwing up - if they apologize. I think not apologizing or screwing up repeatedly over a long period is what escalates it to the point of someone filing an official complaint. I would say this is actual observed Buffista behavior.

Typo Boy - are you worried about 10 Buffistas mobbing someone unpopular, or is this more abstract? I only ask, because even when there have been problems, people are loath to do anything about it. I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't second a request for a warning against someone I didn't like because I didn't like him or her. I would only ever second a request for a warning if I thought the action was warnable and there had been failure to settle it in thread in which is occurred and then in bureau had failed horribly.

edited to add missing words and to make sense

Typo - you read the discussion above about the 10 people thing? You disagree with what was said?

Gandalfe, I think the point you're missing is, yes, you've pissed people off. I've pissed people off. Hell, let's be honest, you pissed me off that one day. But I didn't consider that one day when we were bickering about voting matters to be a violation of our code of conduct here. I certainly would never have asked for you to be formally warned over it. It wasn't a board wide issue.

Basically, this was my long winded way of saying that I don't think 6 months is unreasonable. If someone's conduct has been disruptive to the point of getting an official warning (knowing how lengthy and tiresome that process is), I think they need to play nice for 6 months. If that means they need to walk on eggshells, then maybe this isn't the place for them.

t standing in the been pissed off by gandalfe corner

I just let it go. The post in question was only annoying to me, I thought, and I also thought maybe (probably) I was being hyper-sensitive. I don't think anyone else would do anything different unless they were trying to cause trouble. If it bothers you enough, you bring it up in-thread and you talk about it. If talking about it doesn't solve the problem, then it goes on to more buffistawide handling.

I think buffistas, in specific and in general, are so polite and so willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, that if a warning occurs, the offense has been so egregious, and the in-thread discussion so unhelpful, that a warning is the next logical step for multiple posters. Then, it has to happen all over again within a six month frame of time for another warning to occur. I don't think that's walking on eggshells worthy.

I'd kind of be sad to see the timeframe dropped because it's an issue that's important to me -- since I do think that having no timeframe assumes that you will be "walking on eggshells" the rest of your buffista life. Of course, I don't want to slow this process down or cause others to have problems with its passage, so if that's what has to happen, okay.