In fact, it's only made it so now we have this monster process in place and it doesn't stop the emotional thrash.

Yes, this. Warn Warn Ban. It sounds so easy and cut and dry.

What this means in Buffistatime is

Discuss warning for three days. Marginalize the feeling of 12 Buffistas.

Discuss the second warning for 4 more days. Three Buffistas vow to never return to Bureaucracy.

Discuss banning for 14 days. Take a vote. Alienate 22 Buffistas.

Was bullshit consensus ever this volatile, pedantic, and divisive, or am I idealizing the past?

Tho I admit I don't think the troll-coddling problem is as large as Allyson and Kat percieve it to be.

Troll-coddling is a symptom of the larger problem, as *I* see it, which is decision making by fillibuster.

i.e., let's make this process as bloated and confusing as possible, so that it becomes almost impossible to take part in community decision-making. We can't all agree, so we agree to do nothing, or to do something that will satisfy all people, which is close to doing nothing.

I want a Tim thread. We cannot discuss my wanting this thread for two weeks. Then we will have to discuss my wanting the thread for a week, vote on it for a week, and then not discuss it again for six months. It seems absurd. It's a thread.

I don't think the troll problem has been that large, period. Which may be the point. What if we had 3 miskies and 4 Zoe's and god knows what other species of troll at the same time? I think that's the fear Allyson and Kat are expressing: If there is X amount of hand-wringing for one troll, how exponentially will it become if there were multiple occurences at one time.

However, I also think that SOME of the excessive hand-wringing was becuase this was the first time these things had occurred here. I'm not sure it would happen again. I realize Zoe stirred up as much kerfuffle as mieskie, if not more, but I also think they were very different cases. While there may be yet another troll-type that shows up in the future, are their THAT many varieties?

And Kat, I didn't mean to suggest I thought Buffistas would become TWOP, I was just thinking of it as what I considered to be an especially egregious example of a moderated board.

I realize I seem to be going back and forth on this, but this is the first time I've grasped a more concrete understanding of this side of the argument (rather than at a more theoretical level).

I'm not bothered by the troll problem. Trolls happen. It's the internet, it's open.

I am exhausted (at the best of times) at the length of discussion engendered by what I'd consider an obvious troll. However, I do hope the new "strike" structure in place means a whole lot less of that.

Was bullshit consensus ever this volatile, pedantic, and divisive, or am I idealizing the past?

Given that the two bannings we've had to deal with were instituted under a bullshit consensus, I'd say yeah, you're idealizing the past.

We have a very specific process in place right now for the warn-suspend-ban (it's not warn-warn-ban). This process does not involve a vote. Each step requires only that a certain number of buffistas ask for it. The process was not in place during the previous kerfuffles; it was set up in response to them.

The solution is to move to a situation where there are clear rules and people to enforce them. This community enforcing it doesn't work when people are so conflict-averse.

I think the circular discussions we end up having are damaging to the community, stirring up a lot of very bad feelings.

Yes to both of these points. I agree with ita that, although I really wanted to erase Z and m from my computer screen every time they posted, they weren't the biggest problem. The needlessly painful discussion about whether or not to even warn them was what broke me.

In theory, we can deal with trolls, but the problem is, not all of us agree right now that trolls are something that needs to be dealt with. Or perhaps it is truer to say we don't all agree on what constitutes a troll.

So, Jon, what is the number of Buffistas that need to complain to dish out a warning?

One to request an action. 10 others to second. The details are here: ita "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Apr 19, 2003 12:09:12 am EDT

I think the ssue is that we don't like upsetting people and no matter what we do, one or two people who are not the troll are really, reallt upset. I don;y like upsetting Trudy and connie, I don;t like upsetting Kat and Allyson (for example, over the troll issue) Problem is, whatever we do is going to upset someone, so it becomes harder and harder to make the desicions-- either way someone is upset.

The following procedure will be in place for taking action for unacceptable behaviour.

1. A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful,
2. A user-complainant (does not need to be same person) will post in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy. In Bureaucracy, user-complainant will outline the complaint with linky citations, and request an Action.
3. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for an Action. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour.
4. As soon as the request for action receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth Action.

edit: xpost

(also, we really need to move on a page that sets up the old decisions and what to do).