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.

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

If they didn't have a specific complaint that they addressed in-thread, then anything they said in here would be invalid, as per mslbelle's proposal. And if they started a fight in another thread and then tried to get their victim warned/suspended/banned using the fight as "the incident," I'd like to think that community members would come forward and say "nice try, but you just got yourself a warning." When people are mean to our friends, we're not a shy group of people. In fact, we're pretty fucking intimidating. If someone's subtle enough to exploit us that way, they probably deserve to win.

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.

I'm a stompy, and I'm saying it.

What you are saying is that UNDER THE RULES WE HAVE NOW the stompies could ignore the call for a warning, because they did not meet the criteria for issuiing one. In other words it is not just ten trolls, the ten trolls have to actually quote something, and that something has to meet minimal standards for the stompy. In other words you are saying the existing rules actually provide an implicit stompy veto power.

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.

This response is correct. As it stands now, the proposal that passed represented the opinion that 10 unhappy/offended posters was significant enough to issue a warning. No matter how many unoffended/happy posters.

The other side of this argument though is that in order to move to a warning and then to progress from a warning - a problem poster has to actually be and continue being a poster.

Illustrations:

#1) I post a complaint in Bureau about Poster X, 10 peopel second it. If I didn't try to handle it in thread first - too bad, so sad, my complaint and the seconds don't count.

#2) I post an in-thread complaint about Post X. Poster X stops doing whatever I complained about. I come to Bureau and issue a formal complaint, 10 people second. And this part is HOW I see it - too bad, so sad again- There is no continued behavior to complain about, so my complaint is invalid, despite the 10 seconds.

My point is, it takes two people to continue down a path to lead to a warning or any other action. A poster who offends and a poster who is a offended. Offensive poster must remain unchanging and offended poster(s) must pursue action.

If anyone wants to have a policy to deal with troll gangs or cliques of posters, then I say propose a policy.

If I continue to read this thread, I will likely do as Jesse mentioned and immediatly post a complaint about any poster that I feel is making an unjustified complaint or trying to railroad another poster.

Ok that is fine for me. I just was really bothered when it looked like any ten people could get together at random. That it was pointed out to me that stompy veto is implied in the rules, and that Jon has now said that we are not going to let the rules get in the way in an emergency (such as a mass troll attack) is good enough for me. I don't need anything more formal than that. I will not actually be making any proposal.