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.

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.

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.

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.

DX - a good point. But I don't think there would be problem getting objectiors, and perhaps some people in the group would feel more comfortabe if this happend only when there were objectors.

askye, your understanding is my understanding.

I tend to think that all we need is a general, underlying "Stompies will feel free to disregard formal policy for obvious exceptions not stated in the formal policy". That, in fact, takes care of spammer-deletion as well as obvious trollery.

Subtle trollery? I don't think trollery gets that subtle until after the community has already gotten ugly and begun to fall apart. If we're that much at each other's throats that Buffistas who know the rules and participate in the process are spuriously trying to get each other in trouble, then it's not a fault in our rules but in our sense of community. And I don't foresee that happening for a long time, because we are the original conflict-avoidant monkey-groomers.

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.

Now the above, I do see as an end run around what we just voted in, and I would not only not seconds it, I'd campaign against it. It violates the moratorium.

msbelle's ballot passed because enough of us (really many of those of us who participate) felt like if 10 Buffistas were offended by something, the person posting the something ought to receive a warning.

If you want to develop a process that gives immediate relief in a case where 10 people are being unreasonable and unfair in their request for a warning, I could theoretically get behind that, but not like this.

Because at that point, the stompies decide between the two sides. In other words they specifically either ban/warn 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.

I'm still seeing that as an end run against msbelle's very popular ballot. I'd need to see a decent number (and I think it ought to be a larger number than those requesting the warning, specifically because of the "if it offends 10 Buffistas" mindset) of people state, "This warning wasn't fair because of this, that and the other thing."

Okay, well, my understanding of the new rules is that if someone comes to b'cracy to ask for an Official Warning and there hasn't been an attempt to resolve things in thread the request isn't going to count.

The person will be politely told to please try and resolve things in thread and that asking for an Official Warning is a last step measure not the first thing you do.

That is my understanding too, askye.

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.

How would this end debate? If 10 say yes and 10 say no all I could see is debate as each side tried to sway the other.