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.
msbelle -- a typo -- in "4" near the top of your post, and in "2" near the bottom, you wrote 48 hours, but then put 24 hours in the next sentence.
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.
OK. I think I had a different definition of "incident" than everyone else was using.
It's part of the existing structure, though. Second warning is actually a suspension. Your proposal defines the process.
GOOD POINT. less blah blah. woohoo.
for an example: Schmoker went to bureacracy and said that someone was just going over the top because he'd said, hyperbolically, that there were only 6 firefly viewers.
A stompy (victor, IIRC?) went and looked, said it had been settled in-thread, nothing else happened. I don't think most posters are going to dash off to bureacracy without a real attempt to settle things, and most likely more than once, but if they do, I think it will quickly become a non-event.
I edited this post to fix the mistake Jon found and take in what ita said.
This may not belong here, but bureaucracy has turned kind of fun, so here it is.
We are recognizing that Dropping The Subject is sometimes an acceptable response, right?
I know we don't want our written rules too detailed, in order to protect ourselves from those who would rules-lawyer as a form of trolling. But Dropping The Subject is pretty time-honored, right? Obviously, not in all cases, and not in cases where the offender is achieving some sort of record for cummulative annoyances.
But say two people get hot in a thread, aren't resolving it, and one complains in Bureaucracy. If the offender says, "I'm cranky, I'll walk away," that is acceptable in some cases (not so much in the calling ita and her mom bad names ones), isn't it?
I'm not really comfortable with that. What's cranky-making about saying, "I'm sorry I offended you?"
edited to add: maybe that depends on the person offended?
