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).

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.

And yet, doing nothing but talk endlessly about what we *should* do? Bound to upset pretty much everyone involved.

Burrell, I agree with that. This is why I favored voting (and I think still favor it, unless ita wants to take up and itacracy)-- I hought it would elp us decide how we would least upset the majority.