Rafmun and others, The Procedure that was approved is here: msbelle "Sunnydale Press" Apr 19, 2003 12:02:50 am PDT

I am assuming this is one of those things being compiled into Nutty's guide of rules.

Rafmun, you can say something in the thread in question, and any support will be more of the informal variety.

If you want to avail yourself of the formal "warning" process, as I understand it, you would need to post here in Bureaucracy and include a link to the post(s) in question.

I didn't find this in the FAQ or Etiquette pages, but this is what I've gleaned from reading the discussion in this thread.

If I'm in error, I'm certain someone will be able to give the correct information which I'd suggest should be included in the amended FAQ and/or Etiquette pages.

Annoyed and snotty are not warn-able, in my book. We're all grownups.

We're all grownups.

You take that back!

Rafmun, if you're asking for a warning to Shawn, go ahead and ask it.

It seems an overreaction to me, but I'd prefer you did so rather than edge around the idea passive aggressively.

You take that back!

:P

Yes, Wolfram, I concede that you might have been right on the need for one.

Actually, I'm not sure I ever advocated one, though it was somewhere in the mix with the war thread.

Though the not having one was still grandfathered in. ;-)

But the moratorium ended back in Septemmmphhhh

Annoyed and snotty are not warn-able, in my book. We're all grownups.

Well, anything's warnable if you can get ten people to agree, though. I mean, I could say "lobster sucks! I hate lobster!" and if ten people agreed that this was cruel to lobster-lovers and I deserved a warning, I'd get it.

Not that I should, of course. (Damn them! Bastards.)

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.

Oh, I wasn't challenging you on anything you said w/r/t Shawn; I was asking a general board-directed question, to make sure that what I said was actually the policy we agreed on.

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?

That's definitely a variable. Some people jump right in. Some people (the lurkers who support via e-mail) never jump in. So....somewhere in between. Whatever makes a newly registered person feel comfortable with the local color.

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.

I was definitely not trying to challenge you on anything you've asked about this process; please understand that. I have to leave for class, and I don't want to walk away leaving the feeling that I was challenging you. All I was trying to do -- and I mean this sincerely -- is explain things in my long-winded way.

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.

People are allowed to be condescending. It's rude, but it's not a warnable offense, in my opinion. She didn't continue to bait you, or call you names, or do anything else objectionable. She was annoyed with you and said so.