Gar - It wasn't addressed in the last (or any) ballot, so I don't see it as flying in the face of the moratorium thing, but that might just be me.

If it had already been proposed, and either not seconded, or actually made it to a ballot but been voted down, then I'd have an issue with it as an end-run around what we just voted on.

Say you're driving and a cop who pulls you over and gives you a ticket. The cop has the authority to do that. If you feel you didn't commit the infraction, or there were extenuating circumstances for your infraction, you can appeal. An appeal doesn't void the cop's ticket-issuing authority. It allows you to seek relief if/when something goes awry in the ticket process.

Sometimes you'll win your appeal. Sometimes you won't.

I have mixed feelings about this, and I think my feelings may be influenced by my opinion of the ballot just passed (I was strongly in favor). I'm very much in the "let's-try-this-out-and-see-if-it-works-before-suggesting-any-more-changes" camp.

I know my mixed feelings are only because I am in the same "let's try this camp". I liked msbelle's proposal. The only way I would have liked it better is if she'd broken up her first group of points, so you could vote one down, if you wanted, without negating the whole ballot. I almost voted "no" on the whole thing because of that, but like Hec, I think "good enough" is a good way to decide these things.

Regarding this concern expressed by Michele, Trudy and Gar, I wouldn't make a proposal of my own, because I am not concerned enough about it. I might not vote in favor of it if it is proposed. But I would second a proposal (if I didn't think it was either an end-run or ridiculous), because it only seems fair. msbelle didn't (and didn't have to) include anything that allowed for immediate relief, but that doesn't mean Trudy, Michele, or Gar (or anyone) couldn't propose it separately. It's a separate procedure.

cereal...

I probably wouldn't second something worded the way Gar's is, because I don't think it's a stompy issue at that level (I realize that was only an example, Gar). I'd want something like X-number of Buffistas requesting the relief before the stompies could act.

So I'm allowed to continue to post about non-show topics if I change nearly everything about how I write?

Fuhgetaboutit. I mentioned Caroma "All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American" Apr 14, 2003 1:09:19 am EDT that I try not to be too serious here and Caroma "All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American" Apr 14, 2003 1:42:58 am EDT why I don't, but people kept on taking everything personally no matter how I pleaded for them not to, and which if I did I'd be screaming at my computer every three seconds, so, I'm censoring myself for harmony's (not the vampire) sake. See you in the show threads and only there.

FIJAGH forever! t sings 'There's a plaaace for us...

Caroma - your link takes us to a page not there. What's going on?

I'm not sure it has to wait six months. I don't think it would change the intent of the procedure, just adding a check to reduce the possibility of bullying.

And if our moderators aren't going to be the ones to do so, there's no one who can.

I agree with this...

I probably wouldn't second something worded the way Gar's is, because I don't think it's a stompy issue at that level

...and disagree with this. If it's not the stompies, then we're pretty much back to where we started, i.e. two groups of people debating the issue in thread, with the only way to work it out being the voting procedure.

DX - the next part of the statement you quoted (but didn't include) was:

I'd want something like X-number of Buffistas requesting the relief before the stompies could act.

I'd want 30 (or whatever number) of Buffistas (which could include stompies speaking their mind) to say, "This warning/suspension/banning was unfair" before the stompies could take action. I'd want that precisely because of the fact that I think if we don't establish something quantifiable, the stompies won't know when they should act.

Except that, for now, I don't want anything badly enough to propose it, because honestly, I think if people abused the warn/suspend/ban process, we'd stop them, whether or not it was provided for in the procedures as they're now spelled out.

Actually I think Cindy implied a modification that would work. The stompies can veto, but only if 11 buffistas (1+ 10 seconds) ask them to consider it.

So the proposal would be eleven buffistas in bureaucracy say "this warning / second warning/ banning was unfair/violates common sense". And then a majority of the stompies would have to agee.

And now comes the question Jesse raised. Would the stompies accept such an authority. Remember it only comes when a buffista plus ten seconds asks you to excercise it. You don't have to do it routinely.

And DX would this be acceptable to you? The stompies only do this when asked, but unlike the warning once asked by eleven buffistas they decide - it is neither automatic nor taken to a vote.

And it terms of why do it. Because right now 11 trolls could get togehter, join all at once and start issuing warnings. That is not impossible, and nothing in our system prevents it. I think it is worth setting up some sort of precaution. waiting until it actually happens would be one hell of a mess. And I suspose we could just rely on the stompies to ignore the rules if things got out of hand - but so far they have never gone outside the rules I know of including when dealing with spammers or trolls. I suspect there would be a strong preference on their part for not having to act in violation of rules that have been set up. And for that matter the stompies have never explictly said they would ignore the rules in case of a troll invasion.

they have never gone outside the rules I know of including when dealing with spammers or trolls

christiandollarstore was banned without recourse to the rules, FWIW.

And DX would this be acceptable to you? The stompies only do this when asked, but unlike the warning once asked by eleven buffistas they decide - it is neither automatic nor taken to a vote.

The stompies wouldn't have to do anything under your scenario. Look at it this way. If ten people ask that a poster be warned, that's the only time the stompies actually have to do anything. If another eleven or thirty then say "No, Don't do it," then the stompies don't do anything. Do I have that correct?

Meanwhile, the first ten and the second ten start debating...

Ah didn't we have a rule in place about spammers at the time?