Any limitations on how soon after an "offence" a complaint can be lodged?

I would say ... three days. That gives the problem a chance to be addressed in-thread, but doesn't allow things to drag on or butried bodies to be resurrected.

sorry, I left my repost of the proposal at 24 hours because that's not what I was concerned with, though I think people are leaning toward 48 now? though I'm not entirely sure of that.

I think the offending poster ought to have time to think about what happened and respond in thread and that it ought not be brought up more than 24 hours post occurrence -- though 48 might be more acceptable, if 48 hours is what we go with for the amount of time for the request for a warning be seconded.

However, what if the offending poster gets mad and stomp out and don't know that they've been requested to explain or apologize or whatever until they cool off and come back the next day or two to find it all sewn up in bureacracy?

I don't have an answer.

edited to make sense

Any limitations on how soon after an "offence" a complaint can be lodged?

I would say ... three days. That gives the problem a chance to be addressed in-thread, but doesn't allow things to drag on or butried bodies to be resurrected.

I am against the how soon limit suggestion of 3 days. Look how much damage we did in one weekend, by not addressing the most recent complaint.

I am aginst a how soon limit in general. I don't think it's a matter of time, I think it's a matter of taking all the steps. I'd rather rely on Buffistas being reasonable people. If someone pisses me off and I call them on it, I can discern between my call being ignored and the person taking a breather, and/or actually out there living his life.

Since official action isn't taken until a pattern of disruptive behavior has been observed, I don't think having a time limit for how long after an offense has occured is appropriate.

Cindy, I think we're reading the question differently. I meant that the offended party should have to bring the issue up in bureaucracy within 3 days, otherwise the comment in question disappears into the vast mists of time. The process of initiating a warning could be started as soon as it seems necessary.

I don't think having a time limit for how long after an offense has occured is appropriate.

But that brings up the sort of stuff that happened in Kafka/Sartre, with that "remember how you pissed me off months ago?" thing.

I'd rather not have a time limit for when things can be brought up. Since warnings are for a pattern of behavior, not for a particular incident, it seems like there isn't an exact time when something can be counted from.

But that brings up the sort of stuff that happened in Kafka/Sartre, with that "remember how you pissed me off months ago?" thing.

I guess I don't see how to institute a time limit when we need to demonstrate patterns of behavior.

[What Hil said.]

Also the way Deena has the proposal worded if there is a complaint made and there aren't enough people backing the complaint to justify the warning no more requests for warnings against that incident can be made. That incident can only be brought up as proof of prior behaviour.

that brings up the sort of stuff that happened in Kafka/Sartre, with that "remember how you pissed me off months ago?" thing.

That's what I want to avoid as well. I think certainly things older than 3 days (or a week, or whatever) should be included in considering whether someone was having a bad day or has a consistant problem -- but I think warnings should be for specific, recent instances.

Allowing an indefinite window would also make it easier for someone to target a specific poster they disliked. While it's unlikely a warning would be issued in this situation, I'm not sure we want to have to waste time dissecting the pros and cons of issuing warnings on things said weeks or months ago.