Well, I'll just hope that everyone else is right and I am wrong and nobody will ever be going about their life only to come back later and find out that they've been zapped in absentia. 'Cause that would suck.

I think that's why the "attempt clarification first" is there.

The thing with Z was that she was posting in every other thread than Bureaucracy, and mostly in a very provoking manner (for some reason, she was somewhat coherent in most of her Movie posts). The fact that she was posting in threads she had never shown up in before definitely triggered the "troll" sign in my eyes.

Finally Kat, who had NEVER asked for such, said, "I'm taking this to Bureaucracy." What if*that* happens again, when hypothetical Problem Poster B just happens to no longer be in the thread? I'm surprised no one else thinks this is even remotely likely to happen.

I can see this happening, but what also happened is that a million people emailed Z about the move to Bureau.

Is the worry that a discussion will start in Bureau without the knowledge of the poster in question? Should I add a statement that when the discussion is moved to Bureau a Stompy will be asked to email the poster in question if they are not active on the thread?

Is the worry that a discussion will start in Bureau without the knowledge of the poster in question?

I seem to be the only one worried this might happen, however. But that's because I often don't get to either read or post for well over 24 hours, and I don't read my Buffista email daily either. Then again, I do suppose that busy-with-their-other-lives kinds of posters are less likely to ping people's Annoyometer if only because they aren't around enough to do massive amounts of damage in a concentrated period.

Should I add a statement that when the discussion is moved to Bureau a Stompy will be asked to email the poster in question if they are not active on the thread?

I don't know if we need to formalize that. Really, I was just trying to get an answer to the question what happens if someone comes to defend themselves, and does so honorably, after 10 posters have already given seconds? Is the poster still given a formal warning, or not?

what happens if someone comes to defend themselves, and does so honorably, after 10 posters have already given seconds?

My instinct is, under this proposal, that if they don't appear on the board, then they can't be warned in absentia.

Hell, if they stay away from the board forever, it's the ungraceful solution, isn't it?

Proposal: Warnings will be in effect for 4 months. A second warning would be issued following the same procedure.

I find this wording very unclear. I think I know what you mean, but I'm concerned that others won't. What happens after four months? What is this "second warning"? Is it instead of a suspension or is it the same thing as a suspension? Are you referring to something that happens before or after four months is up?

when the discussion is moved to Bureau a Stompy will be asked to email the poster in question if they are not active on the thread?

That seems like the polite thing to do.

what happens if someone comes to defend themselves, and does so honorably, after 10 posters have already given seconds?

Perhaps if any of the 11 complainants withdraw their seconds, then the warning is withdrawn as well? t /throwing out an idea

Reading your post, Jon, I now realise that the second warning bit doesn't truly belong.

It would be cleanest (she wasy, projecting into msbelle's pink shoes) if this were the proposal for the procedure to get a warning issue, and the sticking period of said warning.

What the warning means? That's codified separately, as is the effect of a second warning.

Right. So maybe:

Proposal: Warnings will be in effect for 4 months. After four months, the offending poster's slate is wiped clean.

or something using less metaphorical wording.