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.

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.

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.

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

Okay, now I am confused. In your first post, way back when, you said

It is also offered from the perspective of an outsider who has lurked for a fairly long time now, and who felt both piled upon and marginalized with his first offer of perspective in this thread - so it is unavoidably influenced by that experience

and IIRC, proceeded to base a lot of your observations on your knowledge and familiarity of the board.

Which is it?

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

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.

Okay - I will certainly accept the council offered. It will give me the oportunity to learn about how the system works.

As such, rather than requesting a formal warning, I will try to resolve the issue 'in thread'. Therefore I request that Shawn stop being snotty to me amd to acknowledge that it is not the 'way of this board' to intentionally be mean toward anyone, as per Wolfram's 'reason not to be' above.

(msbelle - is that a reasonable compromise position for me to take?)

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

I strongly recommend against it.

Strongly agree with Wolfram. We don't bring up warnings lightly. And for something that slight, it would surely be seen as petty to do so.

People snipe at each other from time to time. That's not what the warnings are for.