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.

What's the point of even having bannings if we aren't going to use them?

Every day he was in here as Schmoker was a day he violated his suspension as meiskie and a day he should have been banned.

I voted against bannings from the beginning. I don't think we should use them. I think if we DO it should be a last resort and I think that if someone apologizes they should be given another shot.

And, as a Buffista in good standing, I get to say that and will.

Seriously, what kind of ego trip is that ?

For me, it's not an ego trip. I have no ego investment whatsoever in his ultimate fate. It's more a question of how I want to invest my time here (as in here at the Phoenix board). I personally don't want to waste my time on this particular issue, and yet it seems to be the ISSUE THAT WOULDN'T DIE. I'll admit that it may well be selfish and/or cold-hearted of me to say that I don't want to keep reinvestigating the question of bannings, but there you go.

I think that BANNING FOR LIFE seems a little overly grand.

Someone acts like a prick, kick 'em out if you must. If they do it again, do it again-- maybe even for longer. But if "you must depart from us and ne're be in our company nor discussed again" isn't taking an online community a little too serisously I don't know what is.

And as far as "wasting time" goes, some people don't agree that it is a waste of time and would prefer to have their right to disagree not continually denegrated as such .