Warn -- Warn(2) -- suspend -- ban IS the procedure that was approved by a majority of Buffistas. Not unanimous, but a majority.

At the risk of getting my ass handed to me for this - IIRC that procedure involved inviting the offender into B'cy to confront the allegations made against him.

The bannee in question never had that opportunity, and the banning came in large part because said bannee tried to get his say in and reregistered to that effect. Without rehashing all the stuff about his ban, you'd have to admit that a ban done through the voted in procedure is much more fair (which is why we came up with that procedure) whereas we could be a little more lenient with a ban that happened before that procedure.

Now please don't hand me my ass for that.

Hey, if I could get together a recall and boot Bush I would.

Dude, you want we should go back and use our NEW PROCEDURE THAT WE JUST IRONED OUT to revist everything that we did before?

I'm having a bit of deja vu here, because didn't we already explain a million times why NUH-UH?

But a majority did. So I have to live with it.

Well, not actually. But your point still stands.

I've gone back and forth on this in the past. Right now, my feeling comes down to this. The entire situation has gotten so disruptive that there's no way this person could come back without causing massive amounts of bad feeling and divisiveness. And this is due in large part to his own actions. So while I can envision a situation in which we might want to reconsider a ban (in something like 6 months or a year, not nearly this soon), I don't think this particular case is one of them.

IIRC that procedure involved inviting the offender into B'cy to confront the allegations made against him.

You're right, Wolfram (thanks for the e-mail, by the way) -- I think everyone does recognize that not inviting Michael to B'cy to discuss the allegations against him WAS a mistake.

In any case, since this issue can't be revisited for 2 more months, I agree with Dana that we should move on for now.

you want we should go back and use our NEW PROCEDURE THAT WE JUST IRONED OUT to revist everything that we did before?

Wolfram doesn't seem to be asking to revisit EVERYthing, just THIS thing.

A guy got sentenced under the old laws and it seems reasonable to ask the governor for a pardon or at least leniency under the new ones.

I have a feeling that THIS thing will be the issue that refuses to die. And that the fallout will be far more damaging than I care to think about, no matter how it turns out.

Wolfram doesn't seem to be asking to revisit EVERYthing, just THIS thing.

He has in the past, although I think that confusion has been ironed out since then.

That we've streamlined the process doesn't make the previous decisions invalid.

And, incidentally, I'm saying this as someone who, in best case scenario, would have liked a much different outcome from what we got. I like the guy.

But if we are going to follow procedure (and I know I hate procedure, and bitch about it, and all that), we follow procedure. Even if I don't like procedure and think procedure is lame like hair metal.

That we've streamlined the process doesn't make the previous decisions invalid.

Was there a ballot on that?

Dude, you want we should go back and use our NEW PROCEDURE THAT WE JUST IRONED OUT to revist everything that we did before?

And now I remember why I didn't want to post that.

I'm having a bit of deja vu here, because didn't we already explain a million times why NUH-UH?

We agreed to vote on the revisiting thing and haven't for reasons that continue to elude me.

Anyway, this is not about revisiting old issues. This is about one individual who got suspended, reregistered, banned, reregistered, lied, posted for months and "fit in", came to care deeply about the community, was busted, left voluntarily, waited patiently on the sidelines for two months, has shown for the last few months that he's contrite and respectful, and wants another shot. This is a person with feelings just like us.

In any case, since this issue can't be revisited for 2 more months, I agree with Dana that we should move on for now.

You're welcome Steph.

But I really think the two month thing is just going to delay this conversation and keep the individual hanging. If the issue is open in two months fine. If it's never going to happen, let's get that out right now. But we can't tell somebody that we "may" be able to consider letting them back in two months we'll see in two months, because that's just not fair.