'Out Of Gas'
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
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?
Because some things are never discussed out?
For instance, if Zoe hadn't chosen to piss everyone off in the Angel thread the other night, we'd probably still be talking about her.
People got angry, people got upset -- heck, people are still getting angry and upset, look at what happened upthread between Allyson and Fay -- and I think they would continue to get angry and upset with one another.
I think having a set point at which action is taken (i.e., 10 seconds or whatever) is a good thing. It doesn't stop the conversation, but it relieves the burden on the conversation as being the driver for action.
Shouldn't this discussion be in Light Bulbs, since it directly concerns msbelle's proposal?
What if thirty people think the ten are over reacting?
Then participate in the discussion during the incident to indicate as much.
But I'm with ita: any incident that would result in 10 Buffistas seconding a request for Action? Yeah, that's worth taking an Action on.
Doesn't meant the party in question is gonna get kicked out -- it's just a warning, not the end of the world.
Ten people could back channel right now and decide to warn somebody for nothing at all. It could be Z and nine personalities.
well, no. There is actually no procedure set up right now.