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.

The four months revisit is about warnings not bannings.

This was my understanding to when I voted on that particular ballot. If I thought the four months applied to bannings, my vote would have been different.

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.

Yes. List or no list, let's vote on the Grandfather Clause because it's hoary head keeps popping up everywhere.

Call it harsh, call it unforgiving. I don't care what you call it. Michael not only violated the rules of the community, but abused its members and violated our trust. I cannot in any way, shape or form support his return. I'm sorry if some posters are bereft in his absence. I'm not. at. all.

Wolfram, I realize that you believe that he's learned his lesson. He needs to apply this lesson to the next online community he joins.

I think this is my real issue against the Tim thread proposal:

I feel like we need to finish some other procedural business before we start mucking about with threads for the new season which is still a few months away.

He needs to apply this lesson to the next online community he joins.

Good call.

OK, if "it's only an online community, you can deal with being banned for life" is a valid argument, then "it's only an online community, why do you need to ban people FOR LIFE anyway" is too. Seriously, what kind of ego trip is that ?

Shoot, if the guy wants to be here and be nice nothing stops him from coming under a new name and doing just that.