Xander ,'Showtime'
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!
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.
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's wasn't one step away from suspension.
That was in my head as well.
Sorry for the misread, Jess t cleans glasses -- but I do think suspension can't hurt. It's been effectively three strikes within days, anyway.
I think we should pass the current proposal and see how it works before changing other stuff along with it. Could be that the more formal system will make people less hesitant to wait until they're at the end of their proverbial rope.
I think we should pass the current proposal and see how it works before changing other stuff along with it.
That sounds very sensible to me.
passes the tiny pink gavel back to msbelle