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?

The four months revisit is about warnings not bannings.

Heya, I am so very swamped at work, and won't be able to write up the proposal til lunchtime, which is about an hour and a half from now. That okay by all or am I putting forks in people's eyes?

Real life should come before board stuff, Allyson. Write up the proposal whenever you have time. No need to rush on anyone's account.

The four months revisit is about warnings not bannings.

That's what I thought. But even if it did extend to bannings, wouldn't it be bannings made from the point of the vote? Not bannings done prior?

How did you know this was an issue then, W.?

He told me. And I'm not going to try and explain what he thought his suspension was, anyone who wants to know can ask him themselves. But I do know that at the time he left he was offered the opportunity to bring the issue to the overall board, and he chose to take a suspension instead, to avoid the unpleasantness.

Look, is he going to be able to come back in two months? Is anyone going to volunteer to bring it up again, because I don't want to do it. I'm sick of being the jerk who brings the pain and unpleasantness to this thread. But I'm a freakin' bleedin' heart attorney, who can't stand to see somebody who's reformed continue to get punished. When a man serves his time, I'd like to be able to welcome him back. If most people are vehemently opposed to it, which is what it looks like, fine. I don't want to debate about this ad infinitum.

I'm just one man.

who can't stand to see somebody who's reformed continue to get punished.

Like Jesse said, people can live without the Buffistas. It's not like we cut off his hand.

Also, I want to make sure I understand this: Wolfram, did Michael tell you that he really believed he was *only* suspended?