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.]

10 is also a pretty high number considering the fact that we are only counting as a "second" someone who says, "yes, I think that X's behavior warrants an official warning" (as opposed to saying, "I think that X is annoying, but he has not violated CS").

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.

And I'm sorry if I came across as snippy, Cindy.

The stompy veto could prevent a scenario where, say, another board perished and 15 or 20 refugees decided to teraform the phoenix to their satisfaction.

Can you imagine? A bunch of Rules G*rls telling Allyson not to cuss?

msbelle "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Apr 18, 2003 3:34:39 pm EDT

Is that the final wording, msbelle?

I'm going out for a while. I put up a ballot at [link] (the usual place). If wording needs to be changed, I can do so, but it won't happen until 1 or 2 am or so. Also, has ita pointed votes@buffistas.org to whoever is counting this time?

Jon, yes, that is the final wording as I would like it to stand.

I will put a link in Press to the voting place at midnight.

I trust ita to see that the counter person is set up and this thread is closed.

Who is the counter?

I don't remember. Maybe Deena?

You are number six.

I certainly can be...amazing, my timing at catching up.

Serasempre AT cox DOT net.