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?

If the person offended is okay with it: Yeah, you're cranky, I'm cranky, let's just drop it. Then it drops.

And Schmoker stated categorically that he absolutely refused to apologize if he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, not even, "I'm sorry I offended you." I think that's against the buffista code but I also think that was overlooked because no one wanted to open a can of worms with him. I know I felt pretty wrung out just reading some of his posts.

Okay, Deena, I'm confused. Schmoker brought the complaint to bureau, specifically complaining that Rob (or whomever) was baiting him over his hyperbole. Rob walked away, and that's what Victor said was resolved. What does that have to do with Schmoker apologizing (in that very limited instance).

In other words, when Schmoker annoyed Rob in the thread, Rob got nasty. Schmoker was then the complainant. We didn't go after Rob because he dropped it all, even though he didn't (as far as I remember) apologize.

cereal...

by "didn't go after" up there, I mean, we did not warn.

If behaviour stops, but an apology is not offered.

That is what is in question.

I think we need to be ok with that. It becomes as much of a stink then when someone is demanding an apology. This, I think, is what the use of a filter is for.

Person A screams obsenities at me.
I state I am offened, demand an apology.
Person A says I lost my cool, it won't happen again or I'm taking a break from the board.
I pound my fists and demand an apology.
Person A posts in other threads is not offensive, goes about being a model citizen.

If I can't get past their lack of apology, I need to just block that person. IMO, they do not need to be warned.

I think it depends on the situation and on the posters involved. If ita screams at me in Angel that I'm a worthless waste of space because I suggest killing off Gunn, that's kind of my call. If I don't want to make it an issue, I don't think other people should.

Now if it's a more general kind of thing like, "Everyone with red hair and blue eyes is a worthless waste of space and should be shot," then it's a community thing.

ETA: Also, what msbelle said. I think the behavior modification is more important than the apology for the community's sake. I don't think people should have to apologize if they genuinely feel they have nothing to apologize for. But they do have to recognize the need to keep within CS.