I'd like Julie's post added to the end of the etiquette page, not because I think we need it, but because it states so beautifully what we're about.

I don't think we need more codified rules, I think we need a more codified process for enforcing them, and I think the proposal in Light Bulbs will help up immensely with that if it passes.

The trouble isn't recognizing trolls, it's doing something about it right away instead of waiting for the problem to solve itself.

---

It's a bitch but it's, imho, ultimately worth doing.

I disagree. It tears the board apart.

---

I disagree. It tears the board apart.

I'm totally with Allyson on this one.

---

Strangely enough, this worked well in a room full of rappers, bikers, punks, artsy types and assorted others who were all drinking heavily at 3 p.m. on a Sunday. Only ever had to have two people hauled out and beaten.

I t heart Victor

Hmm. This is probably obvious, but I cast my lot with Trudy and Fay. Although I hate "kumbayah" as a song and would prefer something different. Maybe David Wilcox?

I didn't join the other side, the battle lines just disappeared...

---

I think it's better to discuss a banning pretty thoroughly before it's done--

But really we are talking about warning, not banning. If the poster does not head the warning then we know, don't we.

I (heart) Victor

Yep. Me too.

---

I'm one of those who think the discussion (not that I can stop myself) is too much.

It isn't the end of the world. It's a warning. And if the warning is taken ... just makes the board a happier place, no? And if it's not, so far it's pretty rapidly led to banning, and a whole lot less discussion.

---

I'm one of those who think the discussion is too much.

Yes.

(not that I can stop myself)

Yes. Me too. (Clearly.)

It isn't the end of the world. It's a warning. And if the warning is taken ... just makes the board a happier place, no?

Yes.

And if it's not, so far it's pretty rapidly led to banning, and a whole lot less discussion.

Yes.

---

I Victor, you Jane?

I'm not a Kumbayah person, nor yet ready to ban at a moment's snottiness; and although I see value in talking about problems openly, I also see how endless circular argument quickly devolves into fighting.

We put a procedure in place, and we immediately short-circuit a lot of the circular floundering (cf. Friday 7:30pm to Sunday noon last week). We can still talk about problems, but we don't waste time and frustration trying to consense about them. 10 people are sufficiently bothered to invoke the Stompy Foot of Justice? Then it's time for a warning, whether I 100% agree or not. Because it's pretty well clear to me that reluctance to make it official means when it finally does go official, many more people are ready to second a warning request than might have been originally.

Could we be quicker to complain, and thus possibly quicker to diffuse the tension of a problem poster? Sure. Is there a danger in that speed, of abusing the system or running roughshod over the community sensibility? Yes.

I think that we're building a balance, through a fair amount of trial and error, that offsets speedy warning system against a general reluctance to use it.

---

Both times we've warned they've progressed quickly to bans. Discussing the first is, effectively, discussing the second.

And I don't think it rips the board apart-- what percentage of the board even participates in the discussions? I think it can piss off the people involved. They/We can either act like grown-ups or skip the discussion.

---

Could we be quicker to complain, and thus possibly quicker to

diffuse the tension of a problem poster? Sure. Is there a danger in that speed, of abusing the system or running roughshod over the community sensibility? Yes.

I think that we're building a balance, through a fair amount of trial and error, that offsets speedy warning system against a general reluctance to use it.

What she said...

---