River ,'Objects In Space'
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!
I don't think it is clear what the steps are to move from a warning to suspension.
You mean "Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet. If you don't listen to the warning, you will be suspended for two months. And if you come back unreformed, you will be banned. Banning is rare and very much a last resort." needs to be clarified?
Proposal: Warnings will be in effect for 4 months. After four months, the offending poster's slate is wiped clean.
Perhaps we should spell out "After four months of good behavior the offending poster's slate is wiped clean."
Perhaps we should spell out "After four months of good behavior the offending poster's slate is wiped clean."
But if they weren't behaving well during that time, wouldnt they have gone on to the suspension stage?
But if they weren't behaving well during that time, wouldnt they have gone on to the suspension stage?
Oh, that's true. Probably not necessary, then.
Oh, that's true. Probably not necessary, then.
Well, it doesn't hurt to have it in there, does it? I mean, it's only 17 characters, and I'd hate to see someone try to weasel out of it with that loophole.
In light of recent events, I think after the initial warning procedure, it makes sense to have a common-sense next-steps plan. I mean, if there's any angst over giving the warning, but then the person, say, FREAKS OUT, we should be able to move to suspension more quickly, think.
How quickly is more quickly?
Technically, yesterday/this morning's behaviour followed procedure EXCEPT there was no allowance for clarification. Perhaps a loophole for "egregious disrespect to the community as a whole"?
I have a suggestion that people may or may not like, and it probably outside the bounds of this particular proposal. (If it is, I'll propose it in B'cy when the vote for this one is over.)
Currently, the steps are warn/suspend/ban. In the two cases we've had so far, banning followed very closely on the heels of suspension due to continued demonlike behavior. Because of this, I think we should change the steps to warn/warn/ban. We're under no obligation to paper train people to be good Buffistas, and if they can't cut it after two official warnings, I'm not gonna want 'em back in two months.
Thoughts?
Technically, yesterday/this morning's behaviour followed procedure EXCEPT there was no allowance for clarification.
I was initially thinking that the suspension would need its own ten seconds.
How about
1) Warn
2) Warn with suspension or ban, tbd by the nature and seriousness of the incident.
Sort of like how job descriptions include "other projects as assigned" - a catch all, so real PITAs can be removed.