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.

Revisiting in two months seems fair to me since that is the letter that was sent.

OTOH, I don't see the harm of letting a guy who wants in in and kicking his butt out again if he acts like a tool.

I hate to be the voice of doom-- but this really, really scares me. I wish we were a place where one or two people could just make a decision and not have us argue about it. But we aren't, and I have no idea how to resolve this.

Also, we decided on the warn, suspend, ban thing way back before the Pheonix was in existance.

What Plei said.

Also - what Cashmere said.

I think this issue is going to end badly, no matter how it ends. I think if we don't talk about it, people are going to be mad and leave. I think if we talk about it, people are going to be mad and leave. I think if we let him back, people are going to be mad and leave. I think if we never let him back, people are going to be mad and leave.

t /Eeyore

I'm with Plei in the I-ended-up-enjoying-him corner. But the events around his membership were so damn devisive, and we've never recovered.

I resent that he's asking to come back. I resent that (if I'm understanding this correctly), the Stompies have asked him to wait, but Wolfram is (again, if I'm understanding correctly) agitating for him to be allowed back in, unbidden by Michael himself.

Wolfram, no matter what happens, I think this is going to suck. But I do think it might suck less, if you let M decide to make his own case to the Stompies, if he so desires. He chose not to explain himself to the community while he was still a member. When the Stompies offered him a chance to do so, he opted to deal with them privately and take his leave. Let him continue talking to them if he thinks he has reason to be allowed to make an end run around our 4 month time period.

An emergency has arisen at work which involves me having to bail someone out of jam, and it's going to take a lot of running around and paperwork and crap that I'm not happy about having to do.

Sorry for the delay in my official proposal on the Tim thread. I strongly believe that he deserves the honor, and will be here tonight to post it.

Again, apologies for the delay.

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

Michael has accepted it. At least I assume he has since he didn't respond to the Stompies' email.

and

But I do think it might suck less, if you let M decide to make his own case to the Stompies, if he so desires.

Exactly. Wolfram -- Why didn't you ask Michael about the sitch before posting your social-capital-reducing plea?

I'm not trying to be mean, but Trudy I do see the harm in going through the whole "Warning" issuing thing with Micheal.

Because this time around it could easily be turned into: "well you didn't want to let him back anyway so it's a personal thing...he didn't really do anything wrong."

The Buffistas have been put through enough turmoil as it is because of this and I don't want to see us put through more.