If I and ten friends officially had a problem with, say, the word "cunt" and the offenders refused to stop saying it they could be warned, suspended and then banned.

If I and ten friends officially had a problem with, say, the word "cunt" and the offenders refused to stop saying it they could be warned, suspended and then banned.

But you don't. And "cunt" is not in any way a violation of the community standards, so it wouldn't really be a valid complaint anyway.

And "cunt" is not in any way a violation of the community standards

Unless what we've done is change the way "community standards" are determined.

I ask George to stop using the word "cunt".
He doesn't.
My friends do too
He still doesn't
I lodge a complaint. I link to the refusals as evidence. The other ten people second me. The letter goes out.

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of people have no problem with the word "cunt" because there is no place in that scenario for them to stop the action.

No, what we've done is provided a process for dealing with what happens when they've been broken. When to warn, not what to warn about.

If ten people agree that they've been broken they now have.

If ten people agree that they've been broken they now have.

Trudy, WTF?

Your logic is totally escaping me here.

If someone complains in thread that BuffistaX is using cunt, not caring about context, the complainer is a hell of a lot more likely to get slapped with "we swear. deal."

FWIW, this has happened in Spoilers, and semi-recently.

If, however, BuffistaX is calling, say, Character or Actress Y a cunt, or using it to describe BuffistaZ, I can see action happening.

If ten people agree that they've been broken they now have.

No, if ten people agree that the brokenness is enough to neccesitate a warning, it now does. If they weren't broken in the first place, then it doesn't matter.

Trudy -

You (correct me if I'm reading you incorrectly) are concerned that a gang of ten can do an end run around our process.

Although I don't find it likely, I also don't think you are delusional. Because we've purposefully left our community standards vague so we can guard against rules lawyer-trolls, your concerns have a basis.

Most of the responses to your concerns, seem to be counting on the common sense and good will of the Buffistas to prevail in the sort of situations you are describing. You seem concerned that common sense and good will won't prevail. Gar mentioned similar concerns in the lightbulb thread, last week.

Your concerns (to me) seem unlikely to come to pass in the short-run, because of who and what we are. However, because I was a Bronzer and have seen the downfall of that community, I know communities change, so I don't rule out anything in the long-run.

Review our standards.

Review the procedure we just enacted.

If you think we need some sort of immediate relief process, propose it.

Unless you propose something completely crazy or something that just seems to want to negate our process completely (which is the same process we had before we voted, except now we have benchmarks that let the stompies know when to act on our will), I will second you, on the principle that I believe if a Buffista wants the community to consider something, the community ought to.

Because of our issue moratorium, your proposal can't be crafted to negate our process. But if you're designing a separate procedure based on real and separate concerns, I personally don't see a problem.

A lot of people don't vote because they are too preoccupied with other things in their life and don't feel like voting, and by the time they do seek it out, the voting is usually over, so they give up and don't even try anymore.

IJS.

Daniel -

I'm wondering if maybe you hadn't been in this thread enough (and I can see why) to understand what the whole process is, and how to know when to vote. In case that is the case, I'm going to outline what happens when. If you already know, please ignore me.

• A Buffista proposes we take a vote addressing concerns revolving around a given issue.

• If that Buffista's proposal is seconded by 4 community members, we open the voting discussion (lightbulb) thread for 4 days.

• When Voting Discussion is opened, there is a post in Press, announcing the discussion is starting in the voting discussion thread.

• During the 4 days (96 hours) the Voting Discussion thread is open, the proposing Buffista takes feedback on the issues, posts drafts of his/her ballot, and reworks it.

• At the end of 4 days. The thread is closed.

• Then, an announcement containing a link to the final ballot is posted in Press, stating the polls are open for voting for 3 days (72 hours).

• If an issue is up for discussion, and you know you will be offline for the 3 days the polls are open, you can submit an absentee ballot ahead of time.

In all but extraordinary circumstances, there is plenty of time to discuss (4 days) and vote (3 days), and there are very obvious and clear notices posted in Press both --

a) at the time the discussion begins, and

b) when the voting period begins.

• Voting results are posted in Press in a third and separate announcement.

I haven't posted very much here because of life, but I voted and read.

Several points:

The people who don't want anything to change, who don't want votes should always vote NO. Otherwise you are just letting the people who like to vote rule the board, and making people like Burrell who want no change BE disenfranchised.

The reason we decided (informally, by consensus) to have the proposer craft the ballot and to have a yes /no ballot is the ease and lack of fighting. My last proposal had to be delayed for a significant amount of time because somebody brought u a point which made me uncomfortable about posting. I wanted to wait until I had more of a consensus. It was scary and terrifying to me and I got all frozen and upset.

Further, the proposer is SUPPOSED to listen to the discussion and change the ballot accordingly. The are listening for consensus and trying to craft a ballot that is a consensus. Although, ultimately, the could decide to ignore this, what our current, common sense type buffistas are doing is being the person who is doing all the listening and then crafting the ballot. The consensus method of crafting a ballot doesn't work without a lot of fighting and anger. When I did the final proposal on the last ballot, I proposed something that I voted NO to, becuase it seemed like it was what people wanted.

The Yes/No thing limits preferential voting and discussion thereof. It too, is an informal rule which makes things easier and keeps the discussion from being about voting methods rather than the issue at hand. But it only works if the people who don't like any part of it VOTE NO. This is what saves us from random troll making a proposal and voting it in-- we need to vote no if we feel that way. And I have.

However, if the proposer is really doing his/her job and truly listening to the pulse of the people, I can see why we have more yes votes-- the consensus has been reached-- the proposer is responsible for drafting it.

I think the consensus method was driving people away, too, just not the same ones. Thing is, if they were driven away by the consensus, they had no voice. Voting gives driven away by process people a voice-- vote no.