Annoyed and snotty are not warn-able, in my book. We're all grownups.
Gunn: The final score can't be rigged. I don't care how many players you grease, that last shot always comes up a question mark. But here's the thing. You never know when you're taking it. It could be when you're duking it out with the Legion of Doom, or just crossing the street deciding where to have brunch. So you just treat it like it was up to you—the world in balance—'cause you never know when it is.
'Underneath'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
Jesse - Apr 01, 2004 12:29:26 pm PST #8857 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Dana - Apr 01, 2004 12:30:50 pm PST #8858 of 10005
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
We're all grownups.
You take that back!
Astarte - Apr 01, 2004 12:31:31 pm PST #8859 of 10005
Not having has never been the thing I've regretted most in my life. Not trying is.
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.
Jesse - Apr 01, 2004 12:31:44 pm PST #8860 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
You take that back!
:P
Wolfram - Apr 01, 2004 12:31:50 pm PST #8861 of 10005
Visilurking
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
Katie M - Apr 01, 2004 12:32:50 pm PST #8862 of 10005
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
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.)
Steph L. - Apr 01, 2004 12:33:09 pm PST #8863 of 10005
Unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe
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.
DavidS - Apr 01, 2004 12:34:39 pm PST #8864 of 10005
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
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.
Jesse - Apr 01, 2004 12:35:22 pm PST #8865 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Well, anything's warnable if you can get ten people to agree, though.
Oh, for sure. I was giving my personal opinion.
I can guarantee, though, that if some group of 10 did start trying to ban people over bullshit, ALL HELL would break loose, and shit would change right quick.
Wolfram - Apr 01, 2004 12:36:26 pm PST #8866 of 10005
Visilurking
Whoa, lots of new posts.
Serial to suggest. Rafmun, if you're asking for a warning to Shawn, go ahead and ask it.
I strongly recommend against it. IMO, warnings are for people who persist in engaging in offensive behavior. What Shawn said, although uncalled for, was not a warnable offense. We can't all walk on eggshells all the time, and sometimes things will get to us. We're human, and so are our posts.
That's not to say you can't ask for the warning, but I'll certainly not back you up, and I doubt many people, if any, will. Also, I once tried to get Allyson warned for a snippy comment and in retrospect it was a huge, huge mistake. I'm glad it didn't pass.