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.
I am also not concerned because I not only trust that 10 Buffistas wouldn't gang up in a nefarious or whimsical way, but I also trust that if 10 people suddenly formed an anti-Scrappy cabal, that other Buffstas would leap to my defense.
I am also not concerned because I not only trust that 10 Buffistas wouldn't gang up in a nefarious or whimsical way, but I also trust that if 10 people suddenly formed an anti-Scrappy cabal, that other Buffstas would leap to my defense.
Which I think brings us back to the point Trudy's concerned about - that there is no provision as it stands for the defense. I'm not sure whether I think we need it or not, but I see what Trudy means. Michele's suggestion of a stompy veto might be the least complicated method of dealing with this, but possibly there's another option I'm not thinking of?
If it is a concern to some then a stompy veto is a good option.
If we were to ever have a situation where 10 (really, 11, because there has to be an initial complainant) people decide to gang up on another poster this is would a very different community than it is - and that would be of very great concern to me.
My feeling is that, with this kind of procedure in place, the type of people who would organize an attack on a blameless community member would get themselves sporked for other reasons before they had the chance.
And I think the "linky citations" requirement is proof against people being sporked for no reason.
[Spork is fun to say. Spork spork spork.]