I think a link from the etiquette page is enough. I mean, all of our procedural vote-y things are basically extensions and clarifications of the basic "don't be a jerk" etiquette we started out with.

I wanted to also mention that Msbelle, when she first explained her proposal, said that if the stompies were asked to warn and it was a trolly situation, she was pretty sure we'd ignore the rules anyway and deal with the trolls, instead. That's why I didn't, personally, care if it were written down somewhere or not.

I think it should have a link on the right column, only because when people have questions, it is easier to direct them there directly-- as it will also contain a list of items already voted on and the results.

Also, if Nutty sees this I have a bit more time to work on it.

Deena, Thanks for the info.

I'm proclaiming myself Nutty fanclub President. Anyone who wants to fight me for it, be warned - I have a headache that feels like a hundred howler monkeys fighting and my temper? shorter than me.

I wouldn't fight msbelle for fanclub president in a gazillion years. Not because I'm not a Nutty fan -- but because the Howler Monkeys, they scare me.

I do think we should go ahead and write down somewhere that there's a common-sense veto/override to obvious silly or frivolous or trollish actions. It seems like that's what we've all been pretty much agreeing on all day, but with more confusion than we maybe needed to have. Just to be safe, I say we have it written down somewhere.

I understand Trudy and Gar's concern that the rules as now in force give trolls the power to come in and ban folk and I hope that the two of you don't feel not listened to in all this. I think it's a valid concern--but I think the stompies and the board will suss out the trolls and deal with them befpre that happens. Going by board history, we have a had plenty of disagreements and lost tempers but only two posters have ever been warned. There is a very strong pressure to settle things in-thread and civilly and if that starts to change, I for one will be here asking for it to be dealt with post-haste. And I don't think I'd be the only one.

FWIW, Amych, I don't have any problem with adding to the official language that we ditch the rules in case of emergency if that will make people happy.

Edited to make sense.

Also, I think Nutty asked for volunteers, so if she still needs 'em, I'm willing. Just point me in the right direction.

As I understand the situation, mieskie was suspended, then banned when he continued to post as mmieskie, Michael, etc. When he returned as Schmoker/Ananthema, his identity was discovered and he chose to leave quietly for violating his banned status.

I went back to B'cy 1, to see if this was true and it was. It's interesting to note that the whole mmmieskie/Michael business was his attempt to respond to the allegations in the B'cy thread which he hadn't been previously invited to. This is in contrast to the recent Zoe situation where we bent over backwards for days trying to get her to respond in the B'cy thread to no avail.

Personally I think we should have given mieskie more of an opportunity to respond, and less of an opportunity to Zoe. But the board is definitely learning from the past which is a very positive thing.

But the board is definitely learning from the past which is a very positive thing.

Yes. This. I think as long as we go along with that in mind, we'll come out okay (if occasionally with some local bruising).

t shin-kicking wolfram

t whistling innocently