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
Well, the thing is, somewhere upthread we seem to have agreed that upsetting 10 Buffistas to the point of seconding is worthy of taking action. It's not short-cutting discussion, and I don't think discussion is forbidden, but it does free us from having to come to (that dreaded word again) consensus by discussion.
I don't think anyone who participated or read the Z-related discussion here last weekend particularly enjoyed it, and I think after a while it became more noise, less signal, which, frankly, wasn't all that conducive to an actual decision. No decision was made, in fact, until Z upped the ante in the thread sufficient to tweak just about everyone, and then things happened quickly.
I think the process as defined is designed to get us from one point to another with less handwringing, because everyone knows what happens next and what the stakes are. I don't think it's designed to make it easy to warn/suspend/ban someone, but it will make it less arduous, and it will set up a process that is less damaging to the relationships within the community.
Or am I talking out my arse again?
We're not cutting out the discussions, we're just not going to be repeating in Bureaucracy what's already been said in-thread.
IMO, if ten people think that a warning is justified, there's no reason we all need to talk about our feelings for three days before doing something about it.
IMO, if ten people think that a warning is justified, there's no reason we all need to talk about our feelings for three days before doing something about it.
People who disagree presenting their opinion on the matter is a reason for a discussion.
This time it was three or four. What if it were thirty?
Regardless, if someone comes in here and says "I think X" why shouldn't the people who think "not-x" hold their tongues?
Trudy,
For me, the key point in Jess' post is "three days". I do not hear anyone saying don't post your thoughts on the matter. I do not hear anyone saying other voices should stay silent.
It wasn't a finite incident. It went on continually and the discussion went on too.
Regardless, if someone comes in here and says "I think X" why shouldn't the people who think "not-x" hold their tongues?
Um, they shouldn't hold their tongues. And I don't think that anyone else is asking them to. But I think that I don't understand what you mean.
I'm saying how do you NOT discuss things until they are discussed out?
Regardless, if someone comes in here and says "I think X" why shouldn't the people who think "not-x" hold their tongues?
I'm confused now. The only thing that msbelle's proposal changes about anything is that once ten people say "Yes, this person deserves a warning," a warning is given (or suspension, or ban, if person X has already used up a strike or two). The proposal states that ten offended people is enough. It doesn't forbid anyone on either side from saying anything. (And it hasn't passed yet. People can still vote no.)
Well Trudy, no one can stop people from posting. I guess the point is some of us feel that the discussions in here get not unlike beating a dead horse. But then again, no one forces us to read them.
You like a discussion, you just keep posting. I can skim.
