'Hell Bound'
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!
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.
Both of the people we've suspended have come back within minutes and gotten themselves banned for it.
Do you have the suspicion that it would have turned out any different if it had been warn/warn/suspend/ban?
I don't see how it would have.
Do you have the suspicion that it would have turned out any different if it had been warn/warn/suspend/ban?
Oh I think it would have been worse. Prolonging the agony. On the other hand, maybe if we had two warnings, we could warn sooner? Not wait until we were literally at the end of our ropes to take that step because it wouldn't be so drastic. Plus people might fight less about warning if it wasn't one step away from suspension.
Do you have the suspicion that it would have turned out any different if it had been warn/warn/suspend/ban?
No no -- two warnings, then permanent ban was my suggestion. No suspension at all.
But if people disagree, I'm not going to push for it. It was just a thought.
I think a three-step system is good, but our current second step seems pretty useless.
I agree with bitterchick re: prolonging the agony. And I don't think it's fair to extrapolate how every potential suspendee will behave based on two experiences.