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.
Buffy ,'The Killer In Me'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
what msbelle said.
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?
I'm fine with that. If the behavior stops, then good. An apology is nice, but I don't think we should have to require it.
I'm not really comfortable with that. What's cranky-making about saying, "I'm sorry I offended you?"
Nothing, I suppose. But I believe in the Schmoker case (was it Rob that was offended by Schmoker's hyperbole), there was no actual, "I'm sorry." I think what happened is that it got dropped.
edited to add: maybe that depends on the person offended?
How?