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.

I think we should raise them all, or none. I want it not to be so much about escalation, but about repetition.

I think we should raise them all, or none. I want it not to be so much about escalation, but about repetition.

Yes.

This.

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.

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.

I have been at lunch, so I will go read Bureau next and read the arguments about more seconds. I think that the argument that 10 offended posters is not enough will have to be pretty strong though. I have not seen any evidence that people woudl second action lightly, just the opposite.

New wording and new #3:

PROPOSAL: The following procedure will be in place for taking action for 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 an Action.
4. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for an Action. 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 action receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth Action.

Yes/No

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

Yes/No

PROPOSAL: A Warning will be notified over email, in the thread of incident, and in Bureaucracy. A Suspension will be notified over email and in Bureaucracy. A Ban will be notified by email and in Press.

Yes/No

t kisses msbelle