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.

Hmmm. Okay. Like:

If a poster goes off on us on their webpage, or somewhere else on the net, it's ..

None of our business. We don't like it, it's not cool but we can't use it against them as a reason why they shouldn't be here. But WX and PF aren't just "somewhere else on the net", they're part of the Buffista community. So I think a suspended poster posting there is doing the same thing as if s/he had come to the Phoenix, registered under a new name and posted. And we consider that a bannable offense, no?

bitterchick, I think if the poster in questions links to their webpage on one of our fora, as Z did in PF, it becomes fair game for complaint.

bc, I consider our space on WX pretty clearly ours, although we lack some of the control we have here.

PF? We have no teeth. It's like her standing across the street from our house spouting obscenities. We might be able to get her kicked off someone else's front lawn, if they see our side, but she's not on our property, although she's made it completely clear we can't have her back.