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.

---

Dude. That came out of left field.

Did it? Cause it seems to be a direct quote and then response to your post. Allyson "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Apr 18, 2003 1:10:15 pm EDT

---

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.

---

I'm not sure anyone really thought that was going to happen-- she hadn't changed her behavior in response to anything.

Shawn's right, and in Zoe's case I think we needed to talk endlessly, because we were all (okay, many of us) working ourselves up to the fact that she was probably going to end up banned.

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.

ita, all things being equal, that's a substantial enlargement of the standard meaning I know of. (Where "troll" = someone maliciously trolling for negative attention by posting rarely, out of the blue, and in an imflammatory manner.) I mean, we can use that meaning, if I'm in the minority here, but it's confusing to me to use onoe word and mean something else.

---

I'm not advocating for my use of the word to spread across the internet.

Even before the Zoe thing got heated, I've been anxious about people's effects, not their intentions. I will never know anyone else's intentions, and having them be invisible makes things even fuzzier. But I DO know how they affect me, and I can pretty well judge how they affect us.

That's what I want to mitigate.

---