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.

Wishful thinking?

Cindy, remember that there is no close tag for pedant.

I think three days is long enough. If no one has complained in three days, and you stumble across something that hasn't bothered anyone else, well, evaulating your own feelings might be a good plan at that point, rather than asking for a warning. Not that I'm sure we're actually discussing that.

I like a 48 hour period for the ten complaints, or whatever.

But my head, she's still swimming, so I've got nothin'.

I haven't been present for a single, specific warnable incident, but it's my understanding they have occurred. If they haven't, they certainly could.

Poster A: Blah, blah, blah ita's mother
ita: I would appreciate it if you'd either apologize or explain why you'd use my mother as your example.
Poster A: blah blah blah and ita!
Poster A (50 posts later) : blah to you and your mother!

I think that's warnable. It doesn't have to happen over a certain number of days.

(also with the plea that ita doesn't kill)

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.

Hil, I disagree. Nothing reads like that. As I understand it, the reason we have the in-thread step is for the "someone is having a bad day" thing. They will have time to apologize or state that it is a bad day or otherwise make amends. ONLY after not doing that or continuing to ignoring community standards, would someone be brought up in Bureau.

Now, how long should offended people wait from mentioning something in-thread to moving over to Bureau? I don't know and I don't think that it should be spelled out. Once again, I think the community will not tolerate someone being railroaded. I think we have demonstarted over and over again our willingness to bend over backwards.

As for a statute of limitations on an offending post, I would think that after a week, some context of the tone on the board at the moment will be lost. If you weren't there at the time, it may be hard to get a read on what was going on. You could always ask the poster for clarification.