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
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.
What if thirty people think the ten are over reacting?
If we're going to have votes why aren't we voting about warnings?