The only suggestion I have is this part:

5. As soon as the request for warning receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth a Warning over email and in Bureaucracy.

I think either the warning should be posted in the thread where the incident occured, or a link to the warning in Bureaucracy should be posted there. Just to avoid excuse-making.

I agree with Jess. The warning should be as close to where the infraction takes place as possible, so there is less doubt that the person actually sees it. Include a link back to Bureaucracy, and then in Bureaucracy, mention that the warning was given with a link.

ok, so,

PROPOSAL: The following procedure will be in place for warning a poster about unacceptable behaviour. 1. A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful,
2. A user-complainant (does not need to be same person) will post in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy.
3. A user-complainant posts in Bureaucracy outlining complaint and linky citations, and requests a Warning.
4. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for a Warning. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour.
5. As soon as the request for warning receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth a Warning over email, in the thread of incident, and in Bureaucracy.

Yes/No

PROPOSAL: Warnings will be in effect for four months. After four months, the slate is wiped clean.

Yes/No

PROPOSAL: The procedure for lodging a complaint and requesting action after an initial Warning, will be the same as for a Warning. (in-thread attempt, post in Bureaucracy, 10 seconds in 48 hours, action).

Yes/No

msbelle, how about the idea of calling it not a warning, but a strike? One strike=warning, two strikes=suspension, three strikes and you're OUT.

Just so it's clear that we're defining the process of "strikes". And meaning that if it later goes warn/warn/ban or something, that this particular portion of proposal is not affected.

So ... this is the process of how a complaint can grow up to be a strike, and how long a warning stays on your record, and then the third part doesn't need to be voted on.

Does that make sense?

I like that, ita.

I'm not crazy about the idea of calling them "strikes," because it sounds too punative or something. I really believe there are people out there who basically mean well, and would take their warning, go forth, and Act Right.

The name isn't what it's important to me. It's the idea of separating them from warning/suspension/ban, and complaint's already taken, because that's what's initiating the process.

But I do think whatever they are, they are punitive.

Well, they are punative, which is why I was waffling. I don't actually feel all that strongly about what we call stuff.

I like "strikes" because the word itself indicates that there are three of them.

Serial: In light of what's being discussed in B'cy right now, might it be a good idea to increase the number of seconds needed for strikes 2 and 3?

So, say, strike one needs 10 pissed off people, strike 2 (suspension) needs 15, and strike 3 (ban) needs 20.

I swear, I'm not trying to make this more complicated, but I can see people voting no because 10 angry people doesn't seem like enough justification to ban someone. And I really want this proposal to pass.