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?'

Agreeing with Dana. Shutting up. Moving on.

Thanks for the clarification, Wolfram. And I only cited the above posts for clarfication, since I believe they provide an accurate recap (mine) and verfication of that recap (yours) so others wouldn't have to slog.

Now he's finding out he's banned, probably forever

I don't think he's just now finding out, Wolfram. Or, no, I don't know what he thinks. But I believe he's being disingenuous. "Banned" means banned. ETA: And yes I realize he left voluntarily when it was determined he was the same individual. But that's like pleading guilty in order to avoid a trial -- he admitted that he'd violated the terms of his suspension, the response to which is banning.

The rules were clear -- if someone violates the terms of their suspension, they are banned. For good.

I'm sorry if M didn't understand that at the time he reregistered during his suspension and lied to people about his identity.

I don't think anyone during any of the discussions leading up to and following after the banning ever said anything to indicate that a banning was less than complete.

Do we really need to pull out the dictionary and see how it defines "ban" versus "suspend"?

ETA: and people have asked that we stop talking about it, so I will. Sorry.

If the stompies have sent a letter saying "two more months" that isn't forever.