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).
I think I missed the ChristianDollarStore incident.
Err... someone checked their referral logs and spammed us.
IOW, I should never post links.
However, I don't think the CDS elimination was outside of process, but it's been a long time, and I seem to recall that outright trolls (the Obvious Kind) were to be sporked at will.
That's because their posts were deleted before you could say "BuffyNAngle4EVA!!!!!1!"
I seem to recall that outright trolls (the Obvious Kind) were to be sporked at will.
I may be remembering CDS wrong, but PMM's point is mine.
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.
My understanding of it was (correct me if I'm wrong) is that one would need ten complaints within 24 hours of the original official compaint, otherwise, it's null and void, too bad, so sad. We have no control over someone masterminding their complaint during high-traffic times. If the support is in the community, it's in the community, IMO.
I don't recall seeing this issue addressed, but it may be more appropriate for another proposal:
If a warning is issued, and the bad behavior continues, how long will it be allowed to continue before the poster is suspended?
ETA: I have seen good behavior to blank slate addressed, but not this alternate situation.
