'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
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.
Okay, while lounging at Burrell's place, I had another thought. How do we know when something qualifies as one of the 10? I'm not being dense. I'm actually serious.
What gets my goat lots of the time are the comments like, "Well I find X annoying and irritiating, but I don't know if I think that warrants a warning."
Well, okay. But what are you saying. Warn? Not Warn?
The reason I bring it up is because I see people doing the Defense of Someone with the preface, "I don't like them either."
I'd say that for something to count, it should have to be prefaced with something like, "Count this as one toward warning," or something like that.
What gets my goat lots of the time are the comments like, "Well I find X annoying and irritiating, but I don't know if I think that warrants a warning."
Well for me, I think my comment the other night would have qualified as an absention. Like, "I don't care enough to warn her but I don't mind if you do."
Well for me, I think my comment the other night would have qualified as an absention. Like, "I don't care enough to warn her but I don't mind if you do."
Me Too.