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.

Technically, yesterday/this morning's behaviour followed procedure EXCEPT there was no allowance for clarification.

What do you mean by "no allowance for clarification"?

ita, saying if you are bad you get a warning is pretty clear too. But when one was suggested for Z, it was debated if one should be given out.

I do not see how saying that if you are warned and bad behaviour continues is any clearer. There is still that fuzziness of what constitutes bad enough. AND, I don't think, that saying there is a policy for 10 seconds for one step, automatically makes it clear that 10 seconds is the procedure to follow for all steps. I don't see why spelling it out would be a problem. Because sure as we don't, there are 200 messages in Bureau of people beating on each other about what to do.

I support spelling process-related things out, but I don't think we should define what constitutes bad behavior beyond what we already have. (Because of the problem of defining "offensive" in any other way than "offends lots of community members.")

I agree Jess. That is why the 10 seconds work. Bad enough to get 10 seconds = bad enough, no matter what form it takes.

I like Liese's boilerplate, by the way. Very clear and straightforward.

Exactly -- what we're deciding here is not what happens after one (god I need a word that's not warning, nor complaint -- can I use "smack" for the moment?) smack, or two, or three. That's been decided.

Isn't what's being debated is how one is smacked?

bitterchick -- I think that it became quite quickly apparent that Z (c/w)ouldn't clarify, but since stuff was happening all over the place, it was a little confusing. If a poster goes off on us on their webpage, or somewhere else on the net, it's ..

I dunno. I think it was obvious that she was to be moved to suspension, and the banning was just as obvious, but quite by the book. Doesn't make it wrong, not at all.