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.

I definately agree that banning is banning, but the 4 month rule is in regards to this vote

msbelle "Sunnydale Press" Apr 19, 2003 12:02:50 am EDT

Which to me means point out the need for a page where all the voted on decisions are so I don't have to slog through things to find the decisions.

Or do the rules go immediately into the FAQ/Rules?

IMHO, someone who has been keeping up and really wants to be back in the fold (knowing he could be quickly booted again) deserves another chance.

(Particularly since there is the whole "this all happened so fast", etc. thing here.)

FWIW, I recapped the situation as I recalled it here: justkim "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Apr 22, 2003 2:18:25 pm EDT

And Wolfram checked and verified it here: Wolfram "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Apr 22, 2003 3:47:18 pm EDT

I am kicking myself for asking this, but I feel it needs to be asked:

Am I to understand that, upon receiving the recent Stompy notice to wait another two months, M/S/A has requested other Buffistas to intervene on his behalf?

If not, I apologize for my misunderstanding. If so, I believe this behavior justifies M/S/A’s continued banned status.

t still kicking self

Cindy, I wasn't glossing over that stuff. It happened, I was there, and I even backchanneled a bit with John on it. And I don't want to bring up the past. Bad things happened and a suspension/banning was warranted. I'm bringing up the present.

Michael learned conformation the hard way. And he violated rules and trampled on people along the way. But he learned. And he's been punished. He could have reregistered and just come back again. But he didn't. Instead, he bided his time. And waited out his suspension.

Now he's finding out he's banned, probably forever. If this is the will of buffistas, so be it.

I would suggest that in hindsight it seems a little harsh. YHMV.

Am I to understand that, upon receiving the recent Stompy notice to wait another two months, M/S/A has requested other Buffistas to intervene on his behalf?

Nope. I am doing it of my own initiative and accord.

Very upset about the way mieske conducted himself. Very uncomfortable about Schmoker re-regging. Extremely upset at losing John over this. Not happy about the early stuff, but Anathema did make a dedicated effort to conform, he did volunteer to "leave," believing that it was a suspension, not an irreversible exile.

IMHO, someone who has been keeping up and really wants to be back in the fold (knowing he could be quickly booted again) deserves another chance.

(Particularly since there is the whole "this all happened so fast", etc. thing here.)

My inclination is to agree with Trudy. This has been the test case all along. Shall we test it further?

And I wish John would come back, too.

You know, given that the stompies have sent him an e-mail saying that he at least has to wait another two months, I'd really, really, really like to not talk about this. Because I'm already getting very upset, and I can't see this discussion doing ANY good at this point in time.

How did you know this was an issue then, W.? I didn't even think there was a question as to whether it was a voluntary 'suspension' or a voluntary 'banning?'