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.

Wolfram, I added to my last post (about three up).

This is not the first time Wolfram has asked to revisit previous decisions because new rules have changed.

And under the rules that Micheal was banned under it was Warn, Suspend, Ban.

We changed the rules after Zoe.

Maybe we should revisit Zoe's situation as well---invite her back and give her a second chance. t scarcasm

I'm frustrated by all this because, frankly, we made the rules. And then they got changed, they were made weaker in my opinion.

An online community is based on the trust that we are being honest about who we are. Micheal lied to us every single freaking day when he posted as Schmoker that was a lie. He flagrantly broke the rules of his suspension---which was not being allowed to post on this board.

Unfortunatly I don't have the email anymore but he sent an "apology" for causing problems on the board, and in the email he lied directly to me and claimed that he didn't know why John was so upset at him because he wasn't meiskie and he didn't do those things that John claimed.

Frankly there is no way I'm ever going to be able to trust his claims that he's changed.

Not because he lied through some kind of omission in that he just didn't confess that he was meiskie because some how he loves us so damn much he thought/knew he'd get thrown out.

But because he was never honest about who he was. He never showed respect for us---not in is posting when he first came here and insult the group and individuals, not when he lied to us as a group or me as an individual and not when he's trying to come back.

Wolfram says that Michael likes us, that he respects the Buffistas, that he enjoys us so much that he wants to come back. Well---look at the turmoil just the idea of trying to work out him coming back is causing.

If he really does respect us then can accept the consequences of his actions.

1. The Stompies have had a lawspeak. They have said, even if it were to be discussed towards action, it cannot be discussed towards action until July. Therefore, by definition, the current discussion is wheel-spinning.

1A. Personally, I think foreseeable disruptiveness is the key to letting something drop, or trying to think up a compromise. The disruptiveness of this morning? Totally foreseeable. When it's not foreseeable, or harder to foresee, is the first time I'll be comfortable talking over the issue. Which may mean never, but it certainly means not right now.

2. The grandfather clause must be ratified or voted down before we turn into elderly people. It was seconded before Allyson's most recent proposal, so by rights it should be discussed/voted on first. Is Betsy (the original proposer) available to word the proposal?

3. I agree with Burrell that the consolidation is better talked over before any -- any -- expansion, which was why I was going to propose something Wednesday when I got back. If people are desperate to make a Tim exception, okay I can bend to that, but I really would like to make things, you know, threads that last and continue to matter, cooly thought-through, rather than created in the heat of the moment.