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.

I think forcing and demanding apologies is not okay. If the beahvior changes that was offensive, that should be fine.

Philosophically it breaks down like this: is the warning trying to prompt a change in behavior or is meant to be punitive? If the behavior changes, and that was the rationale, then objective achieved.

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.

I agree, with the exception of the continually annoying behavior. And if so, if it's a pattern, not an isolated incident, the complaint should be worded to reflect that and show the pattern of behavior.

eta, and what Kat said.

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.

I was unintentionally cobbling two things together, and for that I apologize.

1) Schmoker, during some other instance, stated that he refused to apologize if he didn't feel he was wrong. I don't recall what he was asked to apologize for. That may be why he felt things were settled in the firefly situation, because he wouldn't have apologized either, if, in fact, no apology was forthcoming.

2) I did think Rob (or whomever) apologized for getting heated and saying he wished he could block Schmoker, but I do know he wasn't happy. However, I believe Rob was, at first, the one offended because he (and others) thought Schmoker was belittling them and their love of firefly. He didn't complain anywhere but in thread, went over the line, was called on it and then backed off (or, perhaps, left). So, in that instance, I didn't really think of Schmoker as the legitimate complainant. This is all probably very highly colored by my feelings regarding S.

edited to try to make sense.. also going to go wander off. I'm taking this too seriously and it's making me less coherent.

I'm getting so specific, because I just don't want to see the whole community get up in arms over an incident that has died a natural death, and because although I respect the forced-apology as a method, I don't want it to be law (even though I'm personally likely to apologize so that things don't escalate -- I'm easy, but not cheap, yo). Still, I want a pattern of *only* annoying behavior (when it's temporarily dropped but then resumed) to still be actionable.

eta...

Clearly I want my cake and I want to eat it too, atop a pony, a pink one, and I'll call her Apple Blossom, and we'll have marvelous adventures together.

Cindy, my fault for bringing it up as an example in the first place. I thought, since it was so far in the past and S is no longer a concern, that the example would help to clarify thoughts on how to figure out who was or was not willing to settle things in thread first before registering a complaint. Trying to answer the concern regarding an influx of bullies -- basically, that their complaints would probably end up being a non-event. I don't think I expressed well why I feel that way.

Still, I want a pattern of *only* annoying behavior (when it's temporarily dropped but then resumed) to still be actionable.

I think this makes sense. You can't say you're sorry and then start up the same shit a week later. That is a pattern of behavior, and it should be actionable the same way one extreme incident is.