Previous to voting, that's also how we came up with our consensus decisions.

The problem with this (and I think it's very similar to the deathmatch thing) is bullshit consensus of whoever's around at the moment. If four people are posting at one time and three of them agree, that says nothing about The Will of the Board. This is exactly why we have these long, drawn-out procedures -- so as many people as possible can participate, and we aren't flying off the handle.

Ack! Bev! I didn't want you to feel attacked! I just wanted to be clear.

it's perfectly legitimate for Buffista A to come into this thread and say that Buffista B is being insensitive and could someone please ask him/her to stop it, without saying Buffista B needs to be Warned.

of course they can, that is why the procedure that was voted on and approved says "action" instead of warning. I apologize for the confusion.

And Rafmun didn't ever called people assholes (if memory serves). Perhaps that is what was read and perhaps that is what was meant, but for me at least, the using of such words takes the discussion to a much more hostile place.

I don't agree with how Rafmun has been progressing the discussion. I think it is too vague, I think it ignores the possibility that this is what a minority opinion feels like sometimes, and I think that the support given to people here today has been discounted.

Oh, and the warning procedure doesn't even take a "popularity contest" -- it just takes 10 people to agree with you that someone crossed the line. Doesn't matter if 900 disagree.

(psst, Teppy, it's "Kiwanian". Unless grandpa's been lying about it all these years.)

Damn! I knew I shoulda joined more groups....

I wouldn't assume I knew the culture well enough to go in and insult the whole group. It's rude to go in to a group of people who are strangers -- or to whom you are a stranger -- and assert the ways in which they suck. It just is.

I'm part of the group and was not insulted. I also think you're raising the temperature by paraphrasing his concerns with a single four letter word ("suck"). I think he's raised some interesting points that have been worth discussing even if there are no solutions.

There was no matching attempt at compromise, and there didn't seem likely to be.

See, I don't think she pursued the matter thoroughly enough because Ple and I have both mentioned a compromise that would have cut down on the volume of notices without eliminating them. And it was volume that was the issue.

Why should we give any weight to your assertions? I'd really like to know.

Yeah, I don't like questioning anybody's right to post here or make observations or criticism. We can talk all we want about newbies and veterans, but anybody who is registered can participate.

Beverly, this is why I summarized the problem as selfish assholes:

A few posters are definately quite selfish and unwilling to accomodate the wishes and needs of others, and instead persistently require others to accomodate their wants and opinions.

If that is a particuarly unfair description, I'm not sure how.

Regarding Rafmun's term here as a poster. He has the right to speak his mind, surely. But one of the foundations of his post is his authority as a long-time observer. Asking for more concrete evidence than just his word, or his subjective assessment of "long time", is a perfectly fair request. I thought Rafmun was trying to persuade us?

Rafmun, I have to be honest here. I haven't seen you post anywhere but this thread. I don't know what basis you have for being so critical of this community. You haven't been a part of it at all, and yet you come in and post really insulting -- yet vague -- assertions about this community.

Why should we give any weight to your assertions? I'd really like to know.

Well, to be honest right back, Steph, I don't expect you to give any weight to my assertions.

That is kinda my whole point.

Let's look back at the thread to see what we know - just from this thead:

1) Suggestions/issues from newbies like me don't count, b/c they're new and don't know the culture.

2) Issues raised by sensitive posters like Gloomcookie don't count, b/c darn it, there are policies in place to deal with their issues, and if they don't find that enough, tough.

3) Issues raised by avoidy types like Beverly and Sue and MeganE and others can't count, b/c they don't raise the issues loud enough, or often enough, and when they do, loud types are more than prepared to be louder and post more.

4) Long term activist posters like Elana and Trudi who have compromised again and again, but who grow frustrated with lack of reciprocation on behalf of a few self interested posters don't count b/c they should "arse up" and stick it out, and if not, it's on them.

So, who carries the day most of the time? Seems like a small group of activist posters who are able to discount and deluge the opinions of the rest.

I also think you're raising the temperature by paraphrasing his concerns with a single four letter word ("suck").

Well, I really don't want to do that. Honestly.

Having said that, I think what Rafmun described -- a minority persisting in pushing their agenda until people are driven away -- does qualify as sucking.