AFAIK, the rule is that spam gets deleted, spammers banned.
Flames wouldn't be eternal if they actually consumed anything.
Lilah ,'Not Fade Away'
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
Jessica - Apr 22, 2003 9:53:01 am PDT #964 of 10005
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Typo Boy - Apr 22, 2003 9:53:06 am PDT #965 of 10005
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
No - DX in my Scenario if ten say yes and ten say no to the warn/second warning or ban, then we don't have endless debate. Because at that point, the stompies decide between the two sides. In other words they specifically either ban/war or veto the ban/warning. They don't merely take no action. They warn/ban on behalf of those who asked, or they veto the warning/banning on behalf of those who objected.
DXMachina - Apr 22, 2003 9:53:51 am PDT #966 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we said at some point that spammers just got kicked.
Laura - Apr 22, 2003 9:54:24 am PDT #967 of 10005
Our wings are not tired.
I have complete trust that the recently approved ballot will be adequate to handle any problems. If any of the hypotheticals I have seen floated about ever actually occurred (gangs of ten, etc) then I have no doubt that I will have already left town. I don't see it happening. Period. I don't think I am deluded about the type of environment here and my fellow Buffistas, so I plan on sticking around.
Jesse - Apr 22, 2003 9:55:33 am PDT #968 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Clear and obvious spammers should be dealt with without a whole process, IMO.
Also, if someone I didn't trust asked for someone else to be warned, and I felt that it was frivolous or vindictive or whatever? I think I'd ask for that person to be warned themselves. I think that's the best bet. Then B'cracy gets thrown into chaos and there is no immediate action.
§ ita § - Apr 22, 2003 9:57:33 am PDT #969 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
AFAIK, the rule is that spam gets deleted, spammers banned.
I don't see it written down anywhere, though.
Typo Boy - Apr 22, 2003 9:59:35 am PDT #970 of 10005
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
Laura it is not a hypothetical in the sense of wildy improbably possiblity. It does not require a change in our culture. All it requires is a group of trolls joining all at once.
And ita - I don't think you violated the rules in the Christian dollar store case. I think there was a rule of deleting spam and kicking off the spammer already in place. And Jesse seems to remember it that way too. But regardless, we now have a rule that any eleven buffistas, including thoset that joined five minutes ago together can issue a waring. If we don't put a procedure in place such as I have described are you already willing to veto any warning that is called for that is an obvious troll attack or major lapse in common sense?
And reply to X-post - it is not in the etiquette. But we did agree to it when making the rules, even if it did not get written down. In other words you were acting on an agreed buffista consensus. It being left out of the written rules was an oversight.
In short people seem to be saying that we need don't a formal procedure because we can count on you to ignore formal procedure if something comes up that needs it. Do you agree?
§ ita § - Apr 22, 2003 10:02:05 am PDT #971 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Nope. This is all we have:
While we may occasionally mention Buffy or Buffista-related goods, please don't spam us. Thanks. Besides, we all have large penises already.
DXMachina - Apr 22, 2003 10:02:08 am PDT #972 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
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.
In that event, I'm not sure I see the need for a specified number of objectors to the warning. If it is a case of bullying (which AFAIK is what we're talking about), I just think it'll be pretty transparent, and the stompies would be justified in stopping it regardless of how many objections.
brenda m - Apr 22, 2003 10:03:07 am PDT #973 of 10005
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
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?
Actually, I don't think so. As the proposal we just approved stands, one-plus-ten calls for a warning = warning. There's no provision for counting dissenting votes against a warning.
In that event, I'm not sure I see the need for a specified number of objectors to the warning. If it is a case of bullying (which AKAIK, is what we're talking about), I just think it'll be pretty transparent, and the stompies would be justified in stopping it regardless of how many objections.
That's my take. But there isn't anything specifically allowing this as it stands.