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.

AFAIK, the rule is that spam gets deleted, spammers banned.

I don't see it written down anywhere, though.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don't see it written down anywhere, though.

Huh...you're right. I was thinking of this bit:

While we may occasionally mention Buffy or Buffista-related goods, please don't spam us. Thanks. Besides, we all have large penises already.

But it doesn't say what happens to spam, does it?

(I do remember it coming up on WX, and "delete the spam, ban the spammer" was such a clearly unanimous POV that I guess it never got formally written down.)

I think I'm confused so I'm going to try and work out what I hear is being said and someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

There's a concern that with the new system that some people, either current members or future members, may abuse the system in order to bully people and railroad them out of Buffistas.

The worry is that a group of people will inflate or create a conflict in thread with one person and then go to b'cracy and say "I want so and so warned, see what they did in this thread" and then 10 others will second that.

Then those same people will repeat the process until the person is banned.

Do I have that right?

I guess I'm not worried about the sitch that Gar and Trudy foresee because it would not only take 10 trolls coming in, but it would take them learning and following our rules. The trolls I have seen on this and other boards have been as one in NOT paying attention or caring about the local rules of the baord they happen to be in.

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.

Doesn't hypothetical just mean not happening right now? Because it's not happening right now.

I understand that there are roaming packs of trolls out there, and somehow we've just been lucky so far, but I'm pollyannaish enough to believe that we would be able to identify and deal with it, if it were to happen.