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.

Actually, I didn't apologize to Schmoker because I didn't do anything wrong. Saying you plan to filter someone isn't something I knew was offending to anyone. I just consider it information for the poster that I find their manner so valueless that I don't want to read it anymore.

Then ita stopped by and told me to cool it, so I did. It was hard enough to just drop it, though, I don't know if I could have been brought to apologize for it. That would have seemed just too unfair.

That said, I understand now that a decent number of Buffistas consider a threat to filter fighting words, so I certainly won't do that again.

Just throwing this out there:

4 months. yes/no

Rob, I'm sorry for using you as an example. It wasn't my intention to make you feel you needed to explain yourself. I'll stick with using me from now on.

Msbelle, 4 months for what, exactly? until an event can't be brought up anymore?

I am very much of the "apology optional, drop the matter and never speak of it again, go on pleasantly as though nothing's happened" point of view. The insistence on apologies in various situations--I'm thinking court cases now--has practically devalued apologies completely to my mind. "Oh, but he didn't say he was sorry!" only makes me think, "But he's not sorry he did it, he's sorry he got caught and he's only going to apologize because his lawyer knows the jury expects it." Harsh sentencing on the grounds that a defendent has not shown remorse seems a tad naive.

I actually think Rob is an excellent example of how not apologizing doesn't always mean bad things. There was no harm done, Rob chilled and, as he said above, he won't be doing it again because he understands the community reaction and he respects that. It's all good.

I really don't want to see whether or not someone apologizes becoming the be all end all. But maybe that's just me.

ETA: What connie said.

Msbelle, 4 months for what, exactly? until an event can't be brought up anymore?

4 months to be on warning.

The reason we want/like/prefer apologies is because they are the social grease that makes the community run with less friction. Sometimes just dropping the argument will be enough. I don't think the apology should be required, just that it's good form to do so. That is, to apologize because it makes everything work more smoothly. But that's a cultural thing not a rule.

If I implied "I'm sorry I offended you" was the only way to signal the end to a disagreement, that wasn't my intent.