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.
I didn't think it was only patterns of behaviour, I thought it was also a particular incident.
I didn't think we were issuing warnings based on one incident. Everybody has bad days and says dumb things. I was under the impression that this process would only come into play after repeated incidents and repeated attempts to defuse the situation inthread had failed.
I'm really confused. I thought ita was asking if you had to wait to bring a complaint to bureaucracy, and that Lyra was recommending 3 days, in case it blows over. I wasn't reading it the other way.
I do think an offense has a shelf-life, and we shouldn't get to go back in history to find every single post that ever wounded us.
Sorry.
The problem is that this is not spelled out anywhere and I am leaning to making it part of this ballot.
It's part of the existing structure, though. Second warning is actually a bansuspension. Your proposal defines the process.
edited for accuracy
Cereal:
I didn't think we were issuing warnings based on one incident
I can certainly think of one off incidents that might warrant a warning. Someone launches off spewing vitriol about me and my mother? Yeah, I'll want to ask for a warning.
Second warning is actually a ban.
It's a suspension, not a ban, yes?
t /pedant
Sorry, yes, suspension. Sloppy memory.
