Okay, I feel like I missed a memo. Where does this concern for troll packs and bullying gangs come from?

I mean, this was mentioned, back before the vote, and it was pointed out that troll packs and bullying gangs are really freaking obvious. It's not like our Stompies are brain dead or paid personnel that don't frequent these threads and don't know who's who. They post here. They know the names of posters. They know people's posting styles.

If 10 random people just show up one day and demand a warning, I think the Stompy on duty is going to notice that they've been here for, like, five minutes and that they’re being really obvious. A coordinated attack of Buffista bullies? Again really freaking obvious.

I’m not getting this.

Wait, you mean we aren't living in my world where everything is about me? When did that happen?

Ah, now I see where the confusion is coming from. Everything is about me.

Then why am I still wearing this cowboy hat?

Gar's concerns specifically involved the pack of trolls, bitterchick. I'm not so sure about Trudy's. Trudy may have wanted recourse in situations where she felt everyday Buffistas were being unjust. But I can't go back and check because my head went 'spodey before I even powered up my PC this morning.

Gar - I'm glad that satisfies you. Thanks to you, too, Jon.

To address the concern about no written policy on spam, what if we edited this:

While we may occasionally mention Buffy or Buffista-related goods, please don't spam us. Thanks. Besides, we all have large penises already.

To this:

While we may occasionally mention Buffy or Buffista-related goods, please don't spam us. It'll be deleted and you'll be banned if you do; besides, we all have large penises already.

As for the other question ... I agree the "army of trolls" scenario is unlikely, but I do think we should have a written process to rescind a warning/suspension/ban. That will help us if the punishment was asked for maliciously, or if for whatever reasons we decide we want someone to come back. (e.g., if a community member has some sort of life crisis that results in the Internet equivalent of temporary insanity, and 6 months later they email Stompies, apologize, explain, and otherwise make it clear their desire to make amends is sincere, and people are willing to give them a second chance.)

As to what that policy should be ... I have no idea.

I'm sorry that we're still discussing this. I thought voting meant that we could stop?

In a practical situation that seems to be occuring, can we look at the rules in action?

Caroma posted here about Gar asking for an official warning. She (didn't at the time but would know) need 10 people to agree and it didn't happen. Instead, people responded to her request and explained why they disagreed. I do foresee this continuing to happen in this way. People will say "I agree" or "I don't agree" and they discuss it. We're buffistas. It's what we do.

I'm sure there are 10 people at any given time who would like to either have me warned or banned. I'm sure I have at least 10 people who think I'm a wrong headed crackpot. But I also do believe that we are rule following for the most part and I have faith in the collective maturity that makes it socially unpopular to go about dinging anyone except the most egregious of people.

Then why am I still wearing this cowboy hat?

Because it looks so cute!

Do the rules actually say "The Stompies can override the rules in case of community emergency"? This is all I'm asking, really. I'm heartened to see it's generally widely accepted, but, might be worth writing down anyhow...?

My two cents (one per response):

and making people like Burrell who want no change BE disenfranchised.

Just for clarification, I never said I am accross the board against change. I said that on those issues where I don’t want change, I vote “No.” I have actually voted “Yes” on most of the issues raised for a vote.

So I'm allowed to continue to post about non-show topics if I change nearly everything about how I write?

No one has suggested that you have violated CS, Caroma, although you seem to think that you have been accused of it. You are free to continue to post as you have been, just don’t be surprised if people continue to get their feathers ruffled on occasion.

>Do the rules actually say "The Stompies can override the rules in case of community emergency"? This is all I'm asking, really. I'm heartened to see it's generally widely accepted, but, might be worth writing down anyhow...?

We could call it the "Homepage Security Act" or else the "Phoenix Admins Tempering Ridiculously Invalid Outcry and Turmoil" Act. :-)