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.
Jayne: That's a good idea. Good idea. Tell us where the stuff's at so I can shoot you. Mal: Point of interest? Offering to shoot us might not work so well as an incentive as you might imagine.
'Out Of Gas'
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
§ ita § - Apr 22, 2003 10:02:05 am PDT #971 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
Jessica - Apr 22, 2003 10:03:36 am PDT #974 of 10005
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
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.)
askye - Apr 22, 2003 10:06:08 am PDT #975 of 10005
Thrive to spite them
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?
scrappy - Apr 22, 2003 10:07:28 am PDT #976 of 10005
Nobody
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.
Jesse - Apr 22, 2003 10:07:30 am PDT #977 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
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.
amych - Apr 22, 2003 10:07:34 am PDT #978 of 10005
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
I also thought I remembered something about mercilessly sporking obvious spam. Huh. Some kind of weird collective hallucination, I guess.
And speaking only for myself -- other stompies may feel otherwise -- I really have no problem with deciding to resist obvious bully attacks without a formal vote.
Jon B. - Apr 22, 2003 10:07:46 am PDT #979 of 10005
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
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 feeling as well.
I can add "Spam will be deleted immediately" to the etiquette page.
Jessica - Apr 22, 2003 10:10:47 am PDT #980 of 10005
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
it would not only take 10 trolls coming in, but it would take them learning and following our rules.
Exactly, Scrappy. I mean, it could happen (and really, it would only take one troll with ten minions), but I strongly suspect that anyone that intent on destruction would get themselves sporked for being a jerk before they had the chance.