Kaylee ,'Shindig'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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 todiffuse 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...
Discussing the first is, effectively, discussing the second.
Not for me, it isn't. But I can see if you're assuming the warning will proceed quickly to suspension why you might want to discuss it at further length. What I don't understand, then, why you actually want to discuss it at all, since the person is going to keep pissing people off.
What it seems to come down to is that the people who were offended/pissed off keep being so, and get frustrated at saying it again and again. Those that weren't -- well, it's harder for me to project here, but some of them change their minds, other maintain their stance, but the action has happened both times anyway, AFTER Buffistas got mad at each other.
I'm in love with msbelle's plan, because the only mandated discussion is with the person that caused the trouble, and as much as I can't stop typing, I think that's the important one.
And I'd like to know who'd be responsible for deciding that the default link on the etiquette info should be changed.
I think it's been decided. The question now seems to be getting someone to do it.
The question now seems to be getting someone to do it.
That would be Jon.