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.

THE FACT THAT A DISSENTING OPINION REDUCES SOCIAL-CAPITAL AROUND HERE SUCKS

And now we're all being yelled at. Lovely.

Wait---

We don't even know if he wants to come back? We're just going on what Wolfram has said?

I've been under the impression that Wolfram as speaking directly for Michael because he couldn't post here.

I strongly believe that he deserves the honor, and will be here tonight to post it.

You know what? I can understand that, and I think maybe he deserves the honor, too (though I think the thread should be more specific than just "a Tim Minear thread").

But what I don't understand is why it's so important that it has to be done right now, at the expense of procedural votes that were seconded a long time ago, and continue to be bumped out of position in the queue.

This is my objection to this Tim thread proposal. I feel very strongly about this. Probably as strongly as yuou feel about the man getting a thread, Allyson.

The new season doesn't start for months, I don't understand why we can't wait and talk about this instead of doing it RIGHT NOW.

I think Tim has a healthy psyche which will be able to withstand not only waiting a few days, weeks or months to create a thread in his honor, but even withstand a little healthy discussion about it.

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

Oy. Oy oy. If anyone wants to do anything that reduces their social capital, nebulous as that concept is, so be it. This qualification makes me tense, however, as does Trudy's yelling about it.

Maybe it did reduce this magic popularity cash, maybe it didn't. But implying that this effect should have any effect on whether or not someone stands up for what they want/believe in does lend a bit of credence to the "piled on" complaints.

On the other hand, Trudy, it's not what you do, but how and when you do it. And OF COURSE it can reduce social capital. That's what social capital is ... every single sentence you post, whether affirming majority opinion or contradicting it, can affect your capital.

Worrying about it will make you insane.