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.

bitterchick, I wasn't really asking so much as clarifying what I meant by "that." Damned pronouns will get me everytime.

So if someone wants their voice to be added to The Ten, they should actually say, "Count Me. I want X warned."

edited to delete my freudian slip

Just going for clarity.

Yes. I think we need to be clear in the future. If you say you don't care, know that your vote won't be counted. If you care, say you care.

FWIW, I think Typo Boy raises a valid point--the Buffistas as presently constituted certainly wouldn't gang up, but it wouldn't hurt to overbuild our "constitution" a bit just in case that ever changes. Better to have the concept in place than to have to spend 500 posts of Bureaucracy on it if a problem ever arises.

would you be against the time period thing even if it was worded as 6 months or 2 months?

Please don't do this. It disenfranchises those who don't like either choice. A yes/no setup is much more fair. I can think of something else that would be even more fair, but I dare not speak its name. ;)

I would hate to see 10 people sign up and start giving warnings.

In my head, if 10 super-newbies who hadn't ever been active posters suddenly ganged up on someone obviously undeserving of their wrath, they would be soundly ignored. Any procedures we come up with can be short-circuited in extreme situations.

So when does the 24 hour period start? After the first formal complaint in Bureaucracy? What if someone complains on Thanksgiving and gets only two co-sponsers that day, but the next day (or the day after) another 10 people read the offending post(s) and subsequent discussion and chime in on Bureaucracy within an hour of each other? Do they not count because the first official complaint came in a day or two earlier? Or is it 10 complaints within a 24 hour period regardless of whether a complaint was made days earlier and failed. The latter could get confusing, but the former could lead to folks strategizing when to lodge a complaint to insure maximum exposure.

In my head, if 10 super-newbies who hadn't ever been active posters suddenly ganged up on someone obviously undeserving of their wrath, they would be soundly ignored. Any procedures we come up with can be short-circuited in extreme situations.

Or...could we change "10 users" to "10 community members" in the proposal?

Uh huh. And we're going to define "community members" how? I don't want to exclude lurkers or newbies in general. I'm just saying that in extreme situations we can and have ignored procedures (think ChristianDollarStore).