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

t throws pink flowers at msbelle's feet

oh my goodness.

Well I caught up in Bureau and (everyone act surprised) I was not convinced by anything there to increase the number of seconds required. I get that some people disagree and all I can say is, maybe they will step up next time something needs to be decided and draft the language before me.

I am really not willing to write a proposal I don't agree with in an attempt to please people, and I really don't think increasing that number will please everyone.

No one seems angry over there which is good. I think the disagreements are pretty minor.

Whoa, what a time I picked to go away for a while. (Actually, I was right here, it was my computer that went away for medical care.)

I like msbelle's proposal, though I have a couple of questions.

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.

So if I feel a situation is getting heated, and ask the poster offending me to meet me in bureaucracy to discuss, does this automatically constitute a request for a warning? By this point, asking the poster to address the issue in-thread has presumably already failed, but what if my aim is just to get a little distance, to stop disrupting the thread while the issue at hand is hashed out, hopefully forestalling the need for a warning? Should there be an option for a middle step here?

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).

Hmm. Just looking at the most recent situation, will this bottle things up more than necessary? A warning was issued, was promptly violated, and DX took immediate action. But I guess if 10 seconds had been needed, it wouldn't have taken any time to get them, so I'm probably picking at nits here.

I don't see the need for a stated time frame for bringing things to the warning stage, whether a minimum or maximum. Since an attempt must be made in thread to resolve before asking for a warning, we've got a minimum action that takes the place of a minimum time frame. And we tend towards contortionism in our efforts to be scrupulously fair around here, so I think that if I'm running to bureaucracy over something that happened three weeks ago without incident and is considered over and done, I'm going to have a tough time finding my seconds. The requirement to make an in-thread attempt to resolve will also work against me dragging up old stuff unfairly.

I don't see the need for a stated time frame for bringing things to the warning stage, whether a minimum or maximum.

Do you mean the 48 hours? It was my understanding that that period was to prevent someone from deciding to self-Doblerize, leaving the thread and then coming back a few days later to discover they'd received an official warning.