I combined 2&3. Also please note the language change. The term is Action to avoid confusion.

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. In Bureaucracy, user-complainant will outline the complaint with linky citations, and request an Action.
3. 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. 4. 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

To address brenda's point:

By this point, asking the poster to address the issue in-thread has presumably already failed.

If by “failed” you mean they are still being offensive, then I hope that a warning would be requested and my guess is that if you don’t do it, someone else will.

If by “failed” you mean, there is an active discussion going on, about the behaviour in question, but it is not offensive. Then I assume the non-thread topic related discussion could move to email or Bureau or elsewhere.

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.

Then don’t ask for the warning. If someone else does, then that is their deal, but no one is gonna force you to request an Action.

3. A user-complainant posts in Bureaucracy outlining complaint and linky citations, and requests a warning.

Would it be easier to just change the original language to may request a warning? It just seems to me that sometimes you'll want to ask for a warning, and sometimes just want to continue to try to hash it out with the poster without tying up the thread. As it originally read, it seemed liked going to Bureaucracy automatically constituted a request for a warning.

So I'd like there to be a notation that they can ask me to come over here and explain myself before they actually request a warning and seconds. (If they choose - maybe I'm being such a bitch that they want to go straight to warning me, and they should be able to do that too.)

Brenda. I am not going to include all available options for people in this proposal. That is not what it is for. Theoretically people can just ignore folks, you know. The rules shouldn't have to explain that.

If bitterchick makes me want to slap her, I tell her to take it to Bureaucracy...but what if she doesn't want to go?

Then she doesn't go. And if she stays in the thread being offensive, then you ask for an action.

All this proposal says is that after trying to address offensive behaviour in-thread, a complainant will at least inform the offender that they are taking it over to Bureau. This came out of people not wanting to have Action occur against someone who is unaware of Bureau.

Edit: never mind, long post that I ended up figuring out as I typed it.

Why not just have a regular vote on whether someone should be warned?

Ten people is not very many. What ten pals might find unforgivable thirty others might see as a goof.

Edit: never mind, long post that I ended up figuring out as I typed it.

Don't you love it when that happens.

I got nothin' new.

Moved from B:

Do you really think we have ten-person cliques that tight around here? Ten people who would not only be that petty, but all at the same time towards the same person? I just don't see it happening.

Wolfram easily annoyed ten people with what turned out to be a style (as opposed to his intent) that didn't didn't bother a bunch of others.

Why not just have a regular vote on whether someone should be warned?

If that happened, I'd be turning in my keys and leaving.

I don't think I have the vocabulary to explain how much that idea bugs me.

Dude, I just saw two of my fav people go at it in another thread. Which is kinda like seeing your parents fight, but it leads to my point:

You're not really going to have ten people lining up to blackball/force a warning on someone who hasn't done jack, because I can't see anyone finding ten people one's close enough to to pull that crap who all feel the same about person X, Y, or Z.

Wolfram easily annoyed ten people with what turned out to be a style (as opposed to his intent) that didn't didn't bother a bunch of others.

Yeah, but did anyone suggest warning him?

No.