I like that, ita.
My god...he's gonna do the whole speech.
Buffy ,'Chosen'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
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!
Jessica - Apr 18, 2003 10:32:17 am PDT #920 of 10289
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Jesse - Apr 18, 2003 10:35:21 am PDT #921 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
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.
§ ita § - Apr 18, 2003 10:36:57 am PDT #922 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
Jesse - Apr 18, 2003 10:38:29 am PDT #923 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Well, they are punative, which is why I was waffling. I don't actually feel all that strongly about what we call stuff.
Jessica - Apr 18, 2003 10:47:58 am PDT #924 of 10289
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
I like "strikes" because the word itself indicates that there are three of them.
Jessica - Apr 18, 2003 11:25:20 am PDT #925 of 10289
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
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.
§ ita § - Apr 18, 2003 11:26:42 am PDT #926 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think we should raise them all, or none. I want it not to be so much about escalation, but about repetition.
P.M. Marc - Apr 18, 2003 11:27:38 am PDT #927 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
I think we should raise them all, or none. I want it not to be so much about escalation, but about repetition.
Yes.
This.
Jessica - Apr 18, 2003 11:30:03 am PDT #928 of 10289
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
I want it not to be so much about escalation, but about repetition.
I feel that repetition will lead to escalation (as the number of people willing to overlook the issue dwindles with each offense), but simplicity has its virtues too.
Like I said, I really truly don't want to overcomplicate things, so feel free to ignore anything I say.
§ ita § - Apr 18, 2003 11:33:23 am PDT #929 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I don't think it should take more people to say "you're still doing the same thing", is my point. It's the same thing, it should have the same threshold.
Otherwise it implies they have to come back worse to get the next strike.