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
>There is no need for a big kerfuffle. I think we shouldn't post about this any more until we hear from one of the stompies.
Michael did contact the stompies last week to ask if he could come back (since 2 months had passed) or if he was permanantly banned. Here's what we wrote back to him:
Michael,
Sorry for the delay in responding. We admins can be rather Entish sometimes.
Here's what we decided. When you started posting as Schmoker/Anathema, you effectively violated your suspension and were automatically banned. This banning occurred around March 10. We have since voted in a "4-month-reconsideration rule" that "wipes clean" any warnings given after 4 months. It's unclear whether a banning would fall under this rule (it probably shouldn't), but at a minimum we could revisit your case then. In other words, you'll have to wait another two months.
Say, should I
actually
propose "Any Buffista who gets a show gets their own thread"?
It could avoid a lot (knock wood for everyones' careers) of tsuris in the future.
Thank you Jon. That seems like a good way to handle it.
Say, should I actually propose "Any Buffista who gets a show gets their own thread"?
Trudy, I'm sure this will make several people think I'm completely insane, but I will support this proposal wholeheartedly.
It would even mean Tim just gets a thread for his show automatically, and I support it wholeheartedly.
I think that would be a more appropriate way of going about it, and I think more reflective of our nature as a community.
I s*c*nd Sophia's v*te of confidence.
Sean, your logic seems perfectly sensible to me.
(Though I think you are completely insane for much more lewd reasons.)
Jon, thanks for clarifying the Stompy response. The Stompies, in their wisdom, are more generous than I would have been. I do have a couple of points:
By definition, banning is not suspension. It had been my understanding that "banning" meant "not coming back". Ever. Otherwise it's just another suspension.
OTOH we do have this four-month rule. However my understanding is that it was written to apply to issues on which the community votes. The community doesn't vote on suspending and banning for violation of the community standards, at least not the same way it votes on procedure and thread-creation.
In other words, I don't think the 4-month rule applies to this issue. And I think the community would have to agree that it does before it gets used to try to reinstate a banned member of the community.
Just my three cents.
In other words, I don't think the 4-month rule applies to this issue. And I think the community would have to agree that it does before it gets used to try to reinstate a banned member of the community.
I agree. The definitition of "banning" seems crystal clear to me. It means we gave you a second chance, and probably a third and fourth. And you still violated the community standards through all of them. Therefore, you are not allowed back in.
