Warnings are more like a "time out" system in a classroom than they are like a Perry Mason trial.
Yes. This. I hate that we treat warnings like they're the end of the world. If someone is making 10 people nuts or causing people to no longer post in a certain thread, then there is a problem and it needs to be mentioned. It doesn't mean that they're going to get banned. Just that the effects of their bad behavior are going to be pointed out to them. I'd much rather see us warn sooner and save the truly heated debate for the considerably more serious step of suspension.
Warnings come
after
people have tried in thread to work out the problems.
After.
Because we make the rules for warnings clearer doesn't mean were suddenly going to stop trying to make every effort to work out situations between ourselves and start running to have someone officially warned at the first time there are problems.
Someone isn't going to end up being officially warned much less banned without being asked to change their behaviour and told why their behaviour is causing problems.
I may be wrong but there seems to be an idea that if we clarify these rules then as an idividuals we'll change and stop trying to work things out amoung ourselves, are people really worried that will happen or am I misreading things?
Warnings come after people have tried in thread to work out the problems. After. Because we make the rules for warnings clearer doesn't mean were suddenly going to stop trying to make every effort to work out situations between ourselves and start running to have someone officially warned at the first time there are problems.
Thanks for bringing that up again, I think this is key. Any request for a warning when there hasn't been an in-thread attempt should be considered invalid.
That's #1 in the proposal, "A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful..."
Fay, there's benefit of the doubt, and then there's closing your eyes, blocking your ears, and coddling the deranged kid who is running around biting the other kids, and telling the bitten to suck it up, because Little Johnny has ADD and his dad drinks. There's leeway, and then there's the point where maybe lil Johnny needs to be moved to the special school, because this one doesn't have the resources to handle Johnny's issues.
Allyson, what is your problem with my stance? Am I *advocating* that little Johnny be allowed to run around biting the other kids in our analogy, and those kids have to suck it up?
No. I. Am. Not.
I am having a hell of a job keeping from using all caps and curses at this point, because this is infuriating me beyond measure. And it's so damned needless and fruitless to keep going over this again and again, but evidently I have not expressed myself clearly enough. Please listen to what I'm saying, rather than what you think I'm saying.
Let me try once more.
I am wholly, 100% convinced that if someone is having a negative impact upon the community, then it needs to be addressed as swiftly as possible. If you care to go back through the threads (and I'm sure that would bore you as much as it would bore me) you will not find me saying "Oh, no, we can't ban Buffistina Monkeypants. They have to stay. You all have to suck it up. Too bad." I am not saying that our imaginary little Johnny should be allowed to hurt other people.
Are we clear on this?
Before Msbelle's idea was suggested and
Lightbulbs
opened I suggested setting up a system where X many Buffistas expressing their discomfort would automatically lead to the problem being dealt with by a warning then and there, regardless of intent. Action being taken
regardless
of intent. Because it seems to me that intent and interpretation is what the hundreds of posts have been around, rather than the simple inarguable fact that people are upset. It was certainly my concern, and the reason I interjected at all. So rather than go through all the discussion of "X is being vile" "No, I don't think so" "Yeah, I totally agree, X is a bastard!" blah blah blah discussion cakes, I suggested that if RandomBuffistaPerson is upset, they just register their upsetness formally then and there by emailing a stompie. If X many people independently did this, then we'd know we had a problem and an official warning would automatically be sent out.
Apparently this suggestion translates as me being spineless and wanting someone else to be "the meanie" (yes, Burrell, if you're there, I am using the word advisedly, because it pissed me off at the time and evidently it still rankles) so the idea was comprehensively trashed. Fine. Whatever. But don't tell me I'm asking everyone to suck it up, because I wasn't and I am not.
In teaching, I don't automatically assume kids are acting like little shits because they
want
to piss me off, because sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. I believe in giving them the benefit of the doubt with regard to their *intentions*, and treating them positively. But you still need to address the impact right then and there and make damn sure they know where the lines are. I believe in telling them pleasantly but in no uncertain terms that their behaviour is unacceptable and had better change. If it continues, they will get a second, firmer warning and be told that this is their last chance and that continuation will lead in sanctions. And then if they continue to be little shits, they get their ass sent outside/given lines/whatever sanction seems appropriate. I do not believe in humiliating kids or degrading them. I have found that being firm but supportive and giving them the benefit of the doubt has been far more effective a means of bringing troublemakers into line than yelling at them and telling them they're useless would be. As much as possible, yes, I
do
want to be inclusive and find ways of adapting expectations and interactions to get everyone functioning together, but if Little Johnny is biting the other kids then Little Johnny needs to be moved away from the other kids.
Now maybe this pattern isn't transferrable to an online community of adults. But for me, the person and their behaviour are not the same thing. I have no problems with describing the person who showed up for a few posts of out and out "Josh sux you all R stoopid!" posts after Joss arrived in
Firefly
as a troll. Anything more ambiguous than that gets my benefit of the doubt card with regard to
intent.
And intent was the thing I've talked about every time. I'm not convinced that there was malice involved, and so, no, I'm not going to condemn someone. I have no problem saying that their actions or posts drive me apeshit, but this is a different thing from saying I think they're doing it on purpose.
Or, in fact, as I said before:
Agreeing that a situation surrounding/caused by any given Buffistina Monkeypants needs resolving isn't the same as saying that the BMP in question is a bastard.
Moving on to another, related point:
The trouble isn't recognizing trolls, it's doing something about it right away instead of waiting for the problem to solve itself.
See, herein may be the crux of the problem. I don't use the word troll to mean problematic-poster-who-doesn't-fit-in. I use the word troll to mean malicious-bastard-who-doesn't-want-to-fit-in. So by my lights, Buffistina Monkeypants may have to be banned for just not fitting in without actually being a malicious troll.
Allyson, what is your problem with my stance? Am I *advocating* that little
Johnny be allowed to run around biting the other kids in our analogy, and those
kids have to suck it up?
Dude. That came out of left field.
I too am all for LESS discussion. Discussion, at least in the last two cases, has been unproductive, unless what you wanted was tsuris. I'm not saying there should be no discussion, but I do think that the 100s of posts of handwringing does no good.
As for the point that warning has led, in the past two cases, to a swift suspension and banning, I see that as all the more reason to stop the handwringing. If a poster can implode that quickly at a warning, he/she was a problem to begin with. Anyone who is NOT likely to be a long term problem, on the other hand, will not go postal when handed a warning, but will instead rethink his/her behavior.
My definition of troll is someone who adversely affects a given community because they don't fit the etiquette. They can not fit because they don't want to, or just because that's not who they are.
I don't care. Just like I'd be trollish in a number of places, due to either malice or incompatibility, the same happens here. I have NO problem with that. Just like a complaint is not the end of the world, not everyone is made for everywhere.
I don't feel a need to be too too generous with the benefit of doubt thing. Because I'm not denying anyone access to food, water, or intellectual stimulation. I'm about saying "Look, you seem to be pissing a lot of people off. Think you can change?"
Discussing the first is, effectively, discussing the second.
If the discussion-- assuming the poster has access and reads it-- doesn't change the poster's ways, it's likely enough a warning won't, ultimately, either. But perhaps I'm personally over-identifying. (And I wrote this before seeing Burrell's post at 716, which is pretty similar in point)
In Zoe's case, it seemed likely her pattern of behavior would continue, no matter what, and it was a question whether that in itself was enough to lead to banning. As much as we may have said she would change in response to a warning, I'm not sure anyone really thought that was going to happen-- she hadn't changed her behavior in response to
anything.
