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
People need to stop pointing me to things. IJS.
Anyway, here's my take on the Schmoker thing. He says he wants back in and he's learned his lesson and he wants to be a valuable member of the community? Like I care. He had his chance. Here's the key on why I would never support his return.
If he truly cared about this community, he should have stepped in on that day when we were all going at it over whether or not he was mieskie, etc. He could have stopped that unfortunate conversation by copping to it and voluntarily serving out his original suspension. He would have proven that he really did care about this place and the people and had come to understood the way the community worked. Maybe then we could have had this conversation and discussed his possible return.
But he didn't. Instead, he played the outraged wounded party and ranted and raved about how John was wronging him. He didn't confess until he was confronted with hard evidence. While it was good of him to go quietly, it doesn't erase the previous behavior.
He was banned. I don't see any reason to even discuss reversing that decision.
He was banned. I don't see any reason to even discuss reversing that decision
Apparently, some of us do, however.
Actions have consequences and some consequences are permenant, that's just how life goes.
He was banned. I don't see any reason to even discuss reversing that decision
Apparently, some of us do, however.
What's the fucking point of even having the power to ban someone if people are going to call for it to be reversed????
The warn-suspend-ban method is WHAT WE AGREED ON. Okay? And now we need to stand by our agreed-upon procedures.
I know I've said this here before, but I'll say it again: Separation from Buffistas does not cause physical harm. A person can live a perfectly fine life without Buffistas. It may be hard to believe, but it's true. I know several people who are blissfully happy in their lives
even without Buffistas.
I swear. He'll be OK.
The Stompies sent a letter saying that it could not even be DISCUSSED for two more months. They did not make any promises, and in fact, they indicated that they didn't think it likely that his "record" could be wiped clean.
Thank you Dana. That's exactly it. Can we go back to talking about new threads?
Apparently, some of us do, however.
And, obviously, I don't get that. I thought our ban was a permanent deal.
I mean, is this going to be the new thing now? Revisit a banning a few months down the road when the poster claims to have changed their ways? Should I start prepping for the Return of Zoe Finch?
So, there was a proposal from Allyson in Allyson "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" May 12, 2003 12:46:59 am EDT and a sort of proposal from Trudy in Trudy Booth "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" May 12, 2003 12:06:16 pm EDT. The first one got the needed number of seconds, the second didn't (yet?), and they are interconnected.
Where do we go from here?
Sorry to post and run away, but I really have to go. Will catch up tomorrow.
[Edited because as much as I need to run, I'd love to post with real words that exist in the English language]
Yeah, is Allyson going to write up a formal proposal so we can start talking about that instead?
I thought it was decided that decisions made before the voting process would not be held to the new rules. So why does the 4 month "we'll see how we feel" period, even apply to mieskie? Wasn't he banned before we started voting? Or am I wrong about this?
