AND, there has to be an ignored request to discuss it in-thread.

I'm like Plei -- I can't express my reluctance at the idea of a vote (4 day discussion 3 day poll) for a freaking WARNING.

Nuh-huh.

Who approves the case that they make?

Ten people could decide that the word "cunt" is a problem. Suddenly, it would be policy for the board?

ME has a new show and it could happen all over again.

That's only because it was Joss posting.

Tim posting never made people seek out the place.

Joss is unlikely to post again. He may or may not ever do another TV show; who knows? As it stands, however, we're more likely to see a drop off rather than an increase in users.

Remember the last time a VIP posted and the board trippled?

That was Joss, Trudy. Joss is completely different than anyone or anything else.

So what we want is for Joss to never ever post here again?

I think ten is too easy, there are plenty of groups of ten here. Why not a group of twenty or thirty?

So what we want is for Joss to never ever post here again?

I'm confused about this statement.

Why not a group of twenty or thirty?

Why not 802?

Well, whereas 10 seems too easy, 802 seems a mite too difficult.

20 or 30 is a bit closer to 10 and yet unlikely to be people over a beer who got annoyed with Poster X and three days later flip out when X says something obnoxious yet not outrageous.

So what we want is for Joss to never ever post here again?

I don't care if he does or not. I don't think he will, that's not the same thing.

If anything, I think ten is erring on the side of caution.

Trudy, I think 10 was picked because it seemed to intuitively point to a real problem as opposed to a personality conflict. If we have one poster offending a minimum of 10 + 1 Buffistas to the point where the are all requesting that poster be warned, then that poster is demonstrating enough demon-like behavior to merit a warning. The poster is causing trouble and upsetting 10 people who aren't causing trouble.

Even those posters most in favor of banning our previously banned posters, have never lodged a complaint against another Buffista. We don't all madly love each other, but we love the community well enough to bother to distinguish between our personal (dis)taste, and an offense against the community.

It's like the Wolfram example that was brought up in bureau. Nobody thinks Wolfram should be warned or even threatened with a warning. He tried to clarify the bureaucracy m.o., and people were then frank with him where they thought he missed the boat.

Your posts do reference a concern Gar had. Gar was similarly concerned that an influx of new posters could bring with it an influx of sort of an organized gang of trolls.

Personally, I have enough confidence in us, that if a gang of newbies wanted to warn someone because they used a swear, the rest of us would just refuse despite this motion of msbelle's.

However, maybe a way to handle it, is to allow this motion to go up for a vote, and then you can make a motion to open lightbulb, and you can develop a ballot for an opt out sort of clause that allows us to cover our asses, in case (some day) something like that happens?

Making rules to chuck them if they become inconvenient (just IMAGINE that discussion) seems unwise.

And having a second vote to modify a fresh vote has already been problematic.