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...

---

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.

---

Discussing the first is, effectively, discussing the second.

Well, theoretically, that's up to the poster in question, right?

---

I have to agree with Allyson, Laura, Kat, ita, and those guys. Simpler is better, Swifter is less painful, and allows for a poster's rethinking of problem behavior before it escalates and becomes more confrontational and problematic.

And I think this:

Rules are one part of the Buffistas, and etiquette, which points to our expectations and culture, is part the second in how this board breathes.

and this:

Etiquette is [more] about how the content affects those in your shared cyberspace.

from Allyson, needs to go in the FAQ. Or somewhere prominent on the front door. I'd lose the "more" I bracketed, though.

---

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.

Right on.

I also want to point out that even though I know we are the creme de la creme of posting boards, and I can't imagine why people don't spontaneously kneel at the sight of us, being kicked off this board is not going to be the end of the world for anyone. It will not cause them physical harm, or cost them money. They can go somewhere else, and perhaps find a group of people to talk to who aren't driven crazy by their personal style. Or not, but either way, it's really not that big a deal.

What becomes a bigger deal to me is when we, as community members, get all worked up and cranky with each other around this kind of issue.

---

Discussing the first is, effectively, discussing the second.

But Trudy, would that be so if you, Fay, ita, Plei, Allyson, Deena, amyth, amych, msbelle, scrappy, Hec, Aimee, Angus, Steph, Cashmere, Theodosia, jengod, Paul, Sean, Nutty, Jesse, Kat, Jon, John (insert your Buffista of choice here) were the one being warned?

What I mean is, I think if someone is a poster who is actually a Buffista (i.e. the community is a good fit for the poster, and the poster is a good fit for the community), that isn't the case. Granted, it is unlikely any of the people I mentioned above would ever even get a warning. But if one did, I see him/her leaving of his/her own accord at least for a breather (either to feel (!) the righteous anger, or because they were so ashamed they let a bad fight go so far) or really making amends, and the subject never having to be brought up again.

So yeah, in the case of a pain in the ass, is it likely we'll have to warn and that warning will turn to a suspension, and the suspension will probably turn to a ban? Sure. But for the rest of us, the Buffistas (new, old and medium-rare) are much more likely to realize without being told that...

• things are getting out of hand
• this incident of which I'm a part is doing us no good
• I'm going to either apologize or take a break 'til I calm down

...in the first place.

---