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?

When a man serves his time, I'd like to be able to welcome him back.

But his time is a life sentence.

We can revisit this in two months, if at all, sounds like.

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

I don't know what he believed. But I know he did not believe he was permanently banned, or he wouldn't have bothered to follow the threads, and keep in touch with Buffistas, and hope that he'd be allowed back in one day. And his email is in his profile, so feel free to ask him yourself.

Inevitably it doesn't matter what he believed, it matters what we want to do about a situation like this. It's easy to ignore someone who isn't here. It's a lot harder to bygone things and invite him back.

Look, the email that Jon posted said that maybe in 2 months the banning could be discussed. Until then there's no reason to discuss it.

I'm with bitterchick & Steph on the banning of, um, I guess he's called Michael now. I don't see the need to ever revisit a banning, period, but then again, I also learned in grade school not to pick at my old scabs. But all that means is that I can guarantee you *I* won't be the one to suggest, in two months, that we revisit the issue. Because inviting banned folks back? Means we're gonna keep doing it, in which case let's change the name from "banning" to "even longer suspension."

As for the new Thread stuff, I think we have the order reversed. We should vote on combining the Buffy threads FIRST and then on creating the new Tim thread. But I understand that the proposal for the Tim thread came first. Although my brain keeps telling me that, regardless, we need to vote on the Grandfather Clause BEFORE we move on to either thread-related vote.