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

I'm sorry that what I was suggesting came across as such. I was trying to suggest a compromise, because even though I don't share your concern to the same level you do, since two people I respect (you and Gar) have both mentioned it, I'd like to see it at least discussed.

eta...

Also, these aren't rules, they are procedures.

Here's my take. It's icky to tell people they aren't wanted. But we do it all the time. You stop returning somebody's calls. You say "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't do lunch this week." You say "Thanks for asking, Sally, but I'm not going out much lately."

In an open online environment, there is no way to quietly drift away from somebody. If somebody shows up and starts exhibiting bad manners, and is unwilling to correct the manners, you have two choices: tolerate the behavior or explicitly banish the person.

Those are the only two choices. You can't be discreet. You have to publicly say "I don't want to be around you; please go away."

Many of us (me, ita, Allyson, Dana and no doubt others) have seen what happens to an online community that cannot exclude people. The community winds up being destroyed, *not least* by the constant bickering about What To Do About That Person. You will never get 100 people to unanimously agree to exclude the 101st; that really would be groupthink. But if you get 50 people to agree that the 101st is intolerable, that is a strong sign that there's a fundamental conflict, and probably one that can't be resolved.

We can't include everybody. Attempting to include everybody will inevitably lead to people's leaving.

I think maybe the rules could include something about the Stompies having the power to decide that a warning vote was an attempt to troll the board and call for a new vote, but that this power was to be used only in extraordinary circumstances? I don't know.

Seriously, I hate seeing everyone get so upset about hypothetical possibilities when we have only had two incidents that got to that point. And both times the discussion caused more pain than the offending members. That is the reason I want a streamlined process to nip problems quickly.

I trust that a community member would stop being annoying and/or apologize in thread if they have offended others. I trust that 10 of my fellow Buffistas will not call for a warning unless it is warranted. I trust that a member who will in time become a valued member of this community would respond immediately in a positive fashion to a warning.

I absolutely believe that every last one of you that are posting here with me would apologize and stop a behavior if I told you in thread it was hurting me. The people we are talking about warning, suspending, or banning would have ignored all such civil requests. I don’t think this is a grey area.

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

But making rules that are unchuckable is wiser?

Moved from B:

I'm concerned about what "we need to cut out the discussions" means.

I'm not against discussion per se, but I do think that discussion becomes a problem when it's about picking at sores, nursing wounds, flying off the handle, etc. At some point, endless discussion makes the problem worse, not better.

I've seen planned attacks. They are very, very, obvious.

Absolutely, Allyson - I think it's wise to have something about them in the rules now, though, so there's no agita over a new rule when they happen.

Also, I'm not a Charlotte, I'm a Miranda, so there.

I trust that a community member would stop being annoying and/or apologize in thread if they have offended others. I trust that 10 of my fellow Buffistas will not call for a warning unless it is warranted. I trust that a member who will in time become a valued member of this community would respond immediately in a positive fashion to a warning.

Because I think it bears repeating.