When do you get to the position on the board (or in the words of others - have enough social capital) to be able to do that?

Anyone can ask for a warning. And I'd certainly hope that if people agreed it was merited, they'd speak up here, regardless of how long the poster had been around.

I'm not at all offended by folks who disagree with me, but intentional meanness is very unwelcoming.

Which is why several of your posts over the past couple of days have put so many people off, judging by the reactions here. They've read, if not as intentional meanness, at least as deliberate attempts to stir up trouble. I'm not trying to open the whole thing up again, just trying to help explain why you got the reaction you did.

Anyone can ask. For there to be an official warning, 10 people have to agree. That's it.

Where do you do that (here?) and what is the proper/accepted form for doing so? Lastly, is there a difference b/w people who might say "Yeah, that was uncalled for", and those who will agree that a warning should be issued? In other words, if what was said to me was said to you (or msbelle or wolfram or Trudy), would you (same names here) ask for a warning?

Social capital is an ooky term because it makes it sound like there are two groups of posters: Us and Them, and Us count and Them don't. It's not like that. But as in life in general, the opinions of someone you know and respect count more in your head than those of someone you don'. But that doesn't mean that if someone you know and respect starts acting like an asshole, you won't call her on it. Or that someoen you *don't* know will not be listened to at all.

When do you get to the position on the board (or in the words of others - have enough social capital) to be able to do that? As a fairly new poster, it is a very hard thing to figure out.

Anyone can ask. For there to be an official warning, 10 people have to agree. That's it.

Though the official procedure is to first just bring it up in-thread or back-channel, right? We don't skip over that, do we?

Also, Rafmun, because we're apparently different in our style of discourse from other boards (which I didn't know; this is just something that people have told me -- not backchannel), that's why we do suggest in the Etiquette section that new people lurk for a bit: because what might seem like a warn-able/ban-able offense is just an accepted convention. Like the period where a lot of people called each other FUCKO. That one in particular might look strange as hell to anyone who jumped right in.

That said, anyone certainly can jump right in, no lurking.

They've read, if not as intentional meanness, at least as deliberate attempts to stir up trouble.

I'll specifically note, you were very flip at times while a lot of people were trying to give your allegations serious discussion. Very offputting. Also, a lot of your responses didn't engage other people so much as dismiss them as attempts to derail discussion away from the issues as you saw them.

Where do you do that (here?) and what is the proper/accepted form for doing so? Lastly, is there a difference b/w people who might say "Yeah, that was uncalled for", and those who will agree that a warning should be issued? In other words, if what was said to me was said to you (or msbelle or wolfram or Trudy), would you (same names here) ask for a warning?

This actually points up the fact that we need this information to be accessible.

The procedure we agreed to is that an offended person would first respond in-thread. If the offensive poster kept going, the warning would be requested in Bureaucracy, with a notice in the thread where the issue came up. If ten people agree, they get a warning. If it happens again, same process, but it's a suspension.

I have not seen anything said to you that I feel calls for a warning, no matter to whom it was said.

And I guarantee that if someone asks for a warning, it becomes a huge angst-fest. It's only happened a couple of times, but it's not something we take lightly.

Where do you do that (here?) and what is the proper/accepted form for doing so?

I believe it's what Jesse said: ask for it here, and if ten people agree a warning is called for, it happens.

I do also vaguely remember, though, that we'd like people to try and work out the differences in-thread first, if possible. All this is probably in Nutty's Cheesebutt.

Lastly, is there a difference b/w people who might say "Yeah, that was uncalled for", and those who will agree that a warning should be issued? In other words, if what was said to me was said to you (or msbelle or wolfram or Trudy), would you (same names here) ask for a warning?

I have to say, I don't get the connection between the first sentence and the second sentence.

Yes, there's a difference between someone saying "that was uncalled for" and "that deserves a warning". I think what Shawn said (as an example) wasn't particularly constructive, but I perfectly understand the level of frustration that led her to post it. If you're asking if I think she deserves a warning for it, I would say no, because the whole discussion has been difficult and tempers have gotten heated on all sides.

Since the whole policy was put in place, I think the issue of warning has come up...maybe three times. I consider it a pretty big deal.

Damnit, must type faster. Or think faster.

In other words, if what was said to me was said to you (or msbelle or wolfram or Trudy), would you (same names here) ask for a warning?

I sort of answered this in my previous post, but it's my understanding that first you just ask, in-thread, or maybe via e-mail, the person to cool it because what they said was pushing it. For instance, when earlier I said your post was rude and flame-baity and asked you to keep it civil. (And again, thank you. I mean that.) I believe that's a general Step 1.

Then if it keeps happening, you would tell the person (say they were being a jerk in Bitches -- you'd post in that thread) "Hey Flamey McFlamerson, even though I asked you to stop the racist jokes, you haven't, so I'm going to B-cy to ask for an offical warning." That way they know they're being discussed elsewhere, which is fair.

Then you post in B-cy, with links to relevant posts. And if 10 people agree, Flamey McFlamerson gets an official warning.

>Though the official procedure is to first just bring it up in-thread or back-channel, right? We don't skip over that, do we?

I did bring it up. I said that Shawn's post seemed condescending, and asked if that was the intent.

She not only replied 'yes', but then asserted it was intentional.

Also, Rafmun, because we're apparently different in our style of discourse from other boards (which I didn't know; this is just something that people have told me -- not backchannel), that's why we do suggest in the Etiquette section that new people lurk for a bit:

I've been lurking for 6 weeks on general boards. What is the recommended length of time for lurking?

because what might seem like a warn-able/ban-able offense is just an accepted convention. Like the period where a lot of people called each other FUCKO. That one in particular might look strange as hell to anyone who jumped right in.

Yep, it may look strange, for sure. But then, "I'm being mean to you because I want to be and I see no reason not to be" seems, at least to me, fairly clear in its intent and content.