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.

To take my scenario farther.

Say we have Random Pack o' Trolls. They decide they want me gone, they don't like my name (for lack of a more pathetic reason). So they start trying to antagonize me. And I get pissed at Troll 1 and call him an ass.

"Troll 1 you're an ass!" I say in frustration.

And Troll 1 runs to B'cracy and says "I want askye Officially Warned, she called me an ass!" and all his little Troll Buddies chime in "Yeah, that offended me, she can't just call someone an ass, we have community standards."

Then ita would say "Did you try to resolve that in thread?"

The Trolls would say "No" and ita would say "go back and try to fix it in thread."

So the Trolls would go back in thread and say "you called Troll 1 an ass, how dare you!" and I would say "I'm really sorry, I had a bad day and snapped, you were right I shouldn't have called you an ass."

Situation resolved.

But wait! you say--what if Pack o' Trolls does this again to me and I lose my temper again and they run back. "askye insulted Troll 3's intelligence" and the same Pack o' Trolls seconded for a warning and it turns out they didn't try and resolve it in thread.

Well, I think after a few attempts of the Pack o' Trolls trying to get people kicked out people would twig to the fact that the Pack o' Trolls were the ones violating the community standards.

This was really xposty but I'll let it stand.

Am I wearing a Jesse costume today or something? That's two people who've called me that today.

Jess, if you'd take off the cowboy hat, maybe it'd stop happening.

I think I see a cowboy hat, Jess!

Am I wearing a Jesse costume today or something? That's two people who've called me that today.

Who, msbelle? I think she was referring to what I said, but if you said the same thing, well, I guess we just have to stop agreeing with each other so as to avoid name confusion.