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.

The unclear pronoun that in my sentence above is referencing not the actual actions this time, but not thinking that being annoying warrants a warning.

Do stompies get a vote? Do they get to say, "Yes, I agree X should be warned"?

Will they feel comforable voting?

Personally, I think it would have to be pretty egregious to warrant me stepping out and complaining, unless it was directed straight at me. And if it's that egregious, I'm sure 10 people will beat me to it anyway.

I'm pretty comfortable with being excluded from general (but not personal) complaint.

I think I'm confused. If you're asking if I feel that the simple act of being annoying deserves a warning, then no. Not for me anyway. I'm a pissy bitch. I get annoyed easily. Which is why I don't always feel like I'm the best person to contribute to a decision on whether or not someone should be warned/suspended/banned.

As for Stompies, I think that as long as they continue in their current role [unofficial caretakers but not mods] then yes, they should have a vote. I don't know how comfortable they would feel about it though.