I don't thinking dropping the timeframe from this proposal should be seen as dropping a warning timeframe as a point of discussion altogether.

As I said above, I think it is something important to get in place. I think a warning period should be limited and finite. I also think that the procedures for elevating a warning to a suspension should be spelled out. I think the two things could go into one proposal. I think someone should draft language to this point and have it ready to post in Bureau as a proposal as soon as this voting is complete.

so, is someone going to volunteer? because, I would hate to see 6 of them posted all at one time *g*.

I think that we should keep in mind that in the history of the Phoenix we've only been moved to the warning (with or without teeth) of two posters? Is that right? Out of 800 plus? So I think that the ganging up is wildly hypothetical.

If we're really that worried about it then just add a stiff penalty for anyone caught ganging up and tryign to force a poster out.

Of course, it be effective if the situation ever occured then the threat would have to be followed through on.

Elena, I really enjoyed your posts in Bureau over the past few days (I read 400+ posts today). I didn't take much time in my meara to say that, but in the quiet time we have here, I thought I would.

Oh, thank you. I never see you because I don't go into Natter. When I come to visit Trudy (maybe in the Fall) I'd love for us to get together.

And now I'll stop Nattering. Oh, the ironing is delicious.

I think that is a plan.

t /natter

It amazes me how issues build and build and build in Bureau, but just pitter here.

That's because, MsBelle, you're not just msbelle, and msmoveitalongpants, you're msgetothepointpants, and no one's disagreeing with you.

Pretty much. I think the above proposal is workable. I don't think we'll use it much either.

It's the moving from the specific to the hypothetical. People tend not to get too riled up about hypotheticals. Also, it's a pretty damn sound proposal.