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.

Mmm - a troll pack who joined for the purpose of causing problems could start issuing warnings before the got sporked. And one troll with ten minions is what I'm thinking of. Most high schools and middle schools these days have internet access don't they? Plus a lot of elementary schools.

But again, if ita would say explicitly that if we get a warning that is bullying or a troll attack, that she won't execute it, I'll drop this. Or if she says that as a stompy she opposes being given even the limited additional authority this represents, then also fine. I'm not going to make a proposal to give the stompies power they don't want.

But in the absence of this, it seems a good idea to take an obvious low cost precaution against a very real possible danger.

Mmm - a troll pack who joined for the purpose of causing problems could start issuing warnings before the got sporked.

The warning (as I understand it from msbelle's ballot) is issued by the stompies. It takes the 10+1 Buffistas to give the stompies the mandate to issue it. If a Republican Troll pack comes in here and tries to warn you because of some link you posted to Mother Jones, even if there's 11 of them, our stompies aren't going to do it. We're not self-issuing the warning.

Cindy, I thought that was your modification. OK - immediae relief it is then. Or actually an explicity understanding that the stompies will ignore the rules in an emergency, which would include a troll pack attack or a sudden upsurge in bullying. Good enough really is good enough. But I just want to hear a stompy actually say it, rather than relying on people other than stompies saying what the stompies will do.

I'm sorry Typo, I just do not see your scenario ever happening.

Besides they can't just come to B'cracy and say "askye was mean to me." I want her warned and then 10 others say "yeah, me too!" and then PMM would be forced to warn me.

Then they couldn't come back and say "askye was mean again!" and the same 10 say "yeah! me too!" and DX be forced to ban me.

I'd have to DO something to them and then not make amends in thread.