If they link it here. But if I decide that I want to turn the front page of my LJ into "All Buffistas are FUCKOS" and don't mention it here, I don't think you can bring it here.

Agreed, but what if (hypothetically) you have a link to your LJ in your profile? Is that enough indication that you wanted everyone to read your "FUCKO" message to be considered the same as posting here?

Personally, I'd like to only consider behavior here and in affiliated fora. If something is both disturbing and directly linked (e.g., "Here's what I really think of you guys" linked to the "All Buffistas are fuckos" LJ entry), I would say the link makes it functionally the same as posting it here. But I don't want anyone to get in trouble if they were trying to vent privately.

I think in the case of a physical threat, the person should be banned immediately, regardless of whether the threat is posted.

In Zoe's case, if she hadn't cross-posted what she said to PF, I wouldn't consider her comments threats. Threatening, maybe, but also too incoherent for me to get anything out of them other than she doesn't like us very much.

Agreed, but what if (hypothetically) you have a link to your LJ in your profile? Is that enough indication that you wanted everyone to read your "FUCKO" message to be considered the same as posting here?

It's not the same as posting here, but I do think it can come into play.

Is that enough indication that you wanted everyone to read your "FUCKO" message to be considered the same as posting here?

I think we're heading into murky waters. I feel like we can only enforce CS within the community. To try and govern other sandboxes beyond our own bothers me greatly on many levels.

To try and govern other sandboxes beyond our own bothers me greatly on many levels.

But we're not saying that you can't post nasty things in your Livejournal about other Buffistas, just that if you do, and you link directly to it, that's equivalent to posting the comments themselves here.

At least, that's how I'm seeing it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Hey, folks? Seems to me like a lot of this discussion is getting away from the current ballot, and into more general post-Zeo breakdown that might do better in bureau.

Edited to say, I"m moved a response to Jessica over to general bureaucracy.

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.

I don't understand why you want to change something that is working. I also don't think we should be giving people two free passes before action is taken.

I don't understand why you want to change something that is working.

I don't think suspension is working. Both of the people we've suspended have come back within minutes and gotten themselves banned for it.

I think a three-step system is good, but our current second step seems pretty useless.

But theoretically there is a person who would calm down and see the error of their ways after lurking for a couple of months....or who would go away for two months and just never come back.