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.

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.

I didn't think it was only patterns of behaviour, I thought it was also a particular incident. So, I thought I covered both bases, "this particular incident really upset me," or "all of these incidents, including this one before, for which no one registered a complaint (or there weren't 10 people ready to agree with me), upset me."

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.

So if someone's catching up and sees a 4 day old post that they find unforgiveably offensive, they just have to grit their teeth and accept that nothing was done about it?

Three days seems too short to me. A week might be better.

I like Deena's suggestion and for the record, I am supporting a 48 hour time for the 10 approvals of the complaint, with the understanding that as soon as 10 clear approvals are made, the warning is sent.

So for clarity:

4. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for a Warning. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour.

5. As soon as the request for warning receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth a Warning over email and in Bureaucracy.

Kat's point about clarity on seconds - I think people have been very clear on their seconds for motions and I don't think this will be any different. If someone is unclear we can request clarity.

Jon, I understand your concern about anything other than a yes/no ballot. I will keep that in mind.

justkim's question

If a warning is issued, and the bad behavior continues, how long will it be allowed to continue before the poster is suspended?

and ita's response

The second warning-worthy behaviour triggers a suspension ... so I'm guessing it would be whenever ten more complaints roll in on the continuation.

The problem is that this is not spelled out anywhere and I am leaning to making it part of this ballot. "warning-worthy behaviour" is not black and white as the hundreds of posts in Bureau prove.

I think the same type of system would work. Here is my draft of language:

edited to lessen confusion.

A two-month suspension will be issued if a poster receives a second warning within (time to be determined). A second warning would be issued following the same procedure.

This is just a draft, so please give feedback. One thing that will have to happen - Stompies will need to keep a list of who is on warning.

As for Typo's concern. I am not sure how to handle it. I don't think raising the number of seconds is the right solution. Warnings are really not a big deal and I don't think that they should be seen as a tragic event. A suspension, however, could very well be a big deal to a poster and I want people to take the act of making an official request very seriously. My gut is that this community will do that. What if, there is a surge of people who would not? I am not sure we can prepare for all what ifs. If the community begins to get overrun with people who would railroad another poster, I think this policy will be the least of our worries.