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. :-)

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.

I'd replace "you'll be banned" with "you may be banned", because a regular poster may post something spammy without realizing how spammy it is. It''s another of those "we'll know it when we see it" scenarios.

"The Stompies can override the rules in case of community emergency"?

As someone pointed out (sorry - forgot who), this is implied. Only the Stompies can issue an official warning/suspension/banning. If they (we) see a communal emergency, then it won't happen.

(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.)

That's why we have a 2 month suspension before a banning.

That's why we have a 2 month suspension before a banning.

In theory, yeah. In practice, it seems like the warning, suspension, and ban have all come very close together both times they've been used. (Tho my memory is failing me -- was Mieskie banned for his posts as Michael, or for coming back as Anathema? Or was he technically never banned, because he agreed to leave?). I can imagine circumstances where we'd want someone back after a ban, and I think we should codify a way to leave the door open, both so we can say we provided a procedure and just in case the Band of Trolls thing actually happened.

The options I see are a)voting; b)putting the decision in the hands of Stompies; or c)requiring a certain number of posters (say, 25) ask the punishment be rescinded.

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.

OK - We were about ready to get this drop - I get a strong "are you stupid or crazy?" vibe from this. So just to defend my havng raised the point. I just wanted something down, in advance of a problem occuring. We now have a stompy explicitly state that we they will ignore the rules in an emergency. Until I asked we didn't. And I really think if a situation arises, having had this stated in advance is worthwhile - I think it will save hours and perhaps days of recriminations. "I know these people were wrong - but we violated our rules - Wah!" can be answered by "in the following discussion, the stompies stated that sanity would take precedent over common sense in an emergency". Maybe we can add something along those lines to the FAQ

And DX - I totally understand what you are saying. Informal dictatorial power does not thrill me either. But this is a posting board not a government. We really can go on the basis that the stompies are not likely to abuse it (and indeed are much more likely to be reluctant to use it when they should) and if they ever do abuse it, well there are other boards.

I would be happier with something formal - and I will second or vote for it if someone else proposes it But as long as we have now had the stompies explicitly say they will do what they have to in an emergency regardless of the rules, I think that is sufficient. But I don't think it was stupid or worrying about super-unlikely contigencies to at least have the people who are able to act state they would act in such cases, rather than have others speak about them. People need different levels of reassurance, and I don't think asking for an explicit statement on the part of those who would be called on to act was an unreasonable request.

Typo, what do you mean by "ignore the rules in case of an emergancy"?

I've seen you use that a few times and I'm not clear what you mean.

I think you are using that when people have said that if Troll 1 goes to B'cracy and says "askye called me an ass" and DX says "you didn't work it out in thread, take it back there" and discounts any seconds Troll 1's friends may have made.

Are you saying DX is ignoring the rules when he doesn't count Troll 1's complaints and the seconds although they don't meet the requirements for making an official complaint?

In theory, yeah. In practice, it seems like the warning, suspension, and ban have all come very close together both times they've been used.

In both cases the suspension followed closely on the heels of the warning because the poster continued the agressive behavior he/she was warned about. In both cases, the banning followed hard on the heels of the suspension because the posters in question ignored the suspension and continued to post. (And mieskie chose to leave. He was not banned) If they'd waited the two months, they would have had the opportunitiy to come back and participate in the community.

Typo, what do you mean by "ignore the rules in case of an emergancy"?

Askye, my take on it is that the stompies are to exercise common sense when they come across behavior that we didn't take into consideration when the rules and procedures were drawn up. I don't have a problem with that.

Typo, you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're saying the stompies will be flexible enough not to abuse their new power. On the other hand, you're saying that in a very unlikely future event, we NEED a rule, because, I'm presuming, stompies can't be flexible in the future? This statement:

But this is a posting board not a government. We really can go on the basis that the stompies are not likely to abuse it (and indeed are much more likely to be reluctant to use it when they should) and if they ever do abuse it, well there are other boards.

Could just as well be applied against your argument that we need an ex ante rule.