I agree with Hil. I think you can modify, but I'd rather you didn't. Doesn't mean you can't.

I have no comment on msbelle's pants.

However, I like the proposal.

I'mk not sure if we're talking length of time or not. If we ARE, I favor 6 months after a warning and then clean slate. I also favor 10 Buffistas who are offended.

If we are NOT talking length of time yet, or number of Buffistas, then ignore the preceding paragraph.

But my stance is firm on msbelle's pants.

You're getting footprints on them Steph! Besides, you shouldn't be standing. You should be resting.

get offa my pants!

Heather, would you be against the time period thing even if it was worded as 6 months or 2 months? I tend to draft things in a yes/no set-up, but time period could be a choice. ONLY a choice of 2 things though - do not get me started.

I am lying on my stomach. But I am not lying about being in favor of the proposal. (Man, that was cheesy.)

What IS the next step, after we vote on this proposal? Do we vote on a length of time for the warning to be in effect? Or do we draft the wording of the Official Warning?

drafting of the official warning should be going on at the same time as this discussion. It should not be voted on IMO, but should be agreeable to the stompies.

Next step would be one person put up a proposal about time of warnings and procedure from warning to suspension (unless I include those on this ballot also) - everyone else start requesting people to be warned.

I'm against adding it because...well maybe it's moot now that there doesn't seem to be much of an argument about the 1st proposal. I just didn't want arguments about the time issue getting caught up in arguments about the procedure.

I think that what we decided was that the original proposer can modify the proposal. That way things brought up in here can get in, but we don't have to try to get the group to agree on how to word it.

Yes, this.

I put the latest version of wording of an official warning about the 2nd post of this discussion.

I would like to see as much as possible concerning the warning, suspension, banning process covered as quickly as possible. Hopefully finalizing these procedures will lead to more peace and harmony.

The only reason I worry about someone being mobbed, is that boards can change really fast as people sign up. I would hate to see 10 people sign up and start giving warnings. I have seen boards invaded by groups of trolls, some of whom are not obvious - mostly I admit in usenet days. I would just like some sort of precaution in there - maybe a majority of stompies could have veto power if it seem really silly or obviously trollish or something. I just don't like any group of ten people being able to send a warning without nothing to stop. I don't think that is abstract. Or as I said, you have in addition to 10 "yes's" get more yes's than strong "nos". In this context a "I think you are overreacting" would not count as a strong no. A "no" would only be a "This is totally unfair." or "There is absolutely no justification". What harm in having some sort of precaution? I gather the stompies don't want the responsiblity of a veto power - so let's have something. Does not havet be either of my suggestions, but something.

I only worry is if we do that we'll be stuck in this turmoil where someone won't feel comfortable giving any kind of warning, and it will bog down.

If we're really worried about 10 people railroading someone out I'd rather have harsh consequences for doing that than weakning the system to make complaints.