Okay. So. Resolved: There shall be no insulting of holders of minority opinions Bureaucracy thread in future. Yes? Yes? It does nothing to help and everything to hinder civil conversation.

Trudy, was this snottiness really necessary? I'm asking, as a general rule, that yelling not be an accepted tactic on Bureaucracy. I don't see as how you've got a right or a reason to get snotty with me, when all I'm trying to do is police the tone of this thread (explicitly not its content).

Can we please, all of us, strive to be nice, whatever we're arguing about? And "He did it first" isn't a good enough reason to abandon nice. Do I have to whip out my fake communist propaganda joke all over again? (Okay, I thought it was funny.)

I would say though that it behooves the majority, even when being vehement to avoid being nasty to the minority if possible. I know some people have high enough social capital that they can get away with it. But it still makes the thread a less pleasant place to post. For example mentioning to someone that they are spending social capital unwisely strikes me as a fairly nasty comment - even if true. Just like saying "this is a really stupid idea" would be a nasty thing to post - even if true.

Nastiness=wrong.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

What Typo Boy said.

I agree Typo. That's why I apologized.

Nastiness is bad, but have folks gotten nasty today? There were a couple of times that Wolfram was singled out, but there were quick apologies. I certainly see hurt feelings going around, but I don't see people being provoking. In fact, I see people trying to be polite & trying (and sometimes failing, but trying nonetheless) to self-Doblerize.

Jon - no offense taken. Actually that goes for everyone. And none meant either.

Somewhere in this entire mess several questions were posed. For those of you just joining us, here they are:

1) Are bannings, generally, ever up for reconsideration? If so, after how long? And what factors should be considered?

2) If bannings are never up for reconsideration, is M.'s banning subject to special consideration because of the circumstances? And if it is subject to special consideration, after how long?

3) Who should answer these questions? The Stompies? The community at large? Both?

thank you W. for psoting those questions-- they do get into the meat of the matter.

I think I just want to nominate Nutty queen and have a benevolent dictatorship.

My take on Wolfram's questions:

1. Bannings, once applied, have no takebacks. That's what gives them teeth, and that's what makes them a last resort. (Also, that's what justifies and puts to rest all of the yammering that is required to make a banning happen.)

2. I might be amenable to Michael getting special consideration, if and only if the issue were not so divisive. Because it is divisive, and will continue to be divisive for some time, I'm against (a) the topic being brought up again and (b) his getting special consideration. It's one of those deals where I don't really have that much of a beef with the guy himself. But the tsimmes which he represents, the tiny bit of which has come across on this thread today? Gonna go avoidy with that if at all possible.

3. We should answer these questions. I'm thinking that we should all put our heads down and think about it privately for 2 months, till July, in accordance with our new rules; after which we might begin to discuss it academically. Personally I think the murderous rage it brings up, even in the academic, makes it something that we should put off indefinitely, but I can see as how it's only fair to give everyone a target date to look forward to and/or dread.

What do other people think?

Wolfram. Banning pretty much does mean forever. I don't anyone doubted this when we voted for it. I think it would very unusual for bannings to be reconsidered. I don't want to say never - because I distrust absolutes - but certainly I can't see any reason to even discuss an exception in this case. I mean exceptions might be "I had a brain tumor and now it's been removed". "I was on drugs, and I've been clean for over a year now." "I was an asshole and in the last four months I've leanred not be an asshole" just does not cut it.

And these circumstances are the opposite of a case for an exception. He lied in a way that hurt at least one member of our community badly. He lied in a way that hurt our community badly. I kinda like the second version (schmoker/anathama) but I really would not trust him. I would always wonder when he would pull something again - maybe more successfully because he now understands our community and how to manipulate it. I mean I wouldn't want Joss back if he did what Michael did. This is supposed to be a pleasant place to hang. Letting Michael back in will make it a less pleasant place for a heck of a lot of us. And I know for some folks not letting him back in will do this. But I think letting him in will hurt a lot more folks than not letting him in. And since he is the primary guy who created that situtation, I think not letting him back is the reasonable solution. I'm not saying that letting Michael back in would push me out. But the thought would certainly occur to me.