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.

Cindy (in response to your earlier post),

I think where I am getting confused by you and Burrell is this.

If an in-thread complaint is issued and NOT responded to, there is NO reason to move to Bureau. NO response is, in effect, a stoppage of behaviour.

Now if Poster A is called out in Natter, leaves Natter at that moment and goes to Buffy and exhibits same demon-like behaviour, we might have a problem. BUT, and I think this is a BIG point, we have shown over and over and over that at least some members of this community are willing to really extend themselves to offending posters to make sure they get what is going on. AND if we add the language of a Stompy notifying the poster of the move to Bureau, I don't know what else we can do? Having a set wait time before moving to Bureau seems like the worst possible answer to me. The board will implode if a nasty decides to reign terror with or without knowledge of a complaint.

And, I restate, it is only a warning. A warning does not do a damn thing to a person who starts following the community standards.

I kinda want to take a warning on myself just to prove the point that it is meaningless to someone who respects the board.

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?

yes, I do. Because what was considered demon-like behaviour worthy of a warning was hotly debated, we had to develop this proposal to establish community support for warning a member.

I think if we do not spell out that the same standards apply to move to suspension and then banning, that we are asking the Stompies to say "yes, this case is bad enough", "no, that isn't so bad" OR basically decided because of who is screaming in Bureau.

I think that a laid out policy that is consistant, will cut down on the hand wringing. Of course, some people will disagree, but people in Bureau will not have to post all of their rationale in an effort to convince people. A motion is put forward, if you agree, second it, if you don't you can argue against it, but there will be no need to try to build complete consensus.

I don't see what's not spelled out. Once you're warned, twice you're suspended, three times you're banned.

What's being discussed is "how to lodge a complaint" and "how long does the complaint stay on the record", right? I don't see where the rest isn't taken care of.

edit: I mean, unless we're changing it, we don't need to vote. Changing the language in the explanation to be clearer is simple.

I was initially thinking that the suspension would need its own ten seconds.

I didn't count, but by the time I got here, it certainly looked like there were ten.