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.

I second the nomination for Nutty as dictator. t /joke

I think that's a very wise proposal.

Nastiness is bad, but have folks gotten nasty today?

I almost hesitate to describe what struck me as nasty, for fear of reopening cans of worms now that things are settling down again. I'll just say that as someone who mostly just observes this thread, I've been puzzled by the strong reactions to some of Wolfram's posts, though, as you say, most of that has been apologized for. Also, while I think "social capital" is a fascinating topic for academic discussion, I've felt, I dunno, kinda squirmy? about the way it was used today.

Nastiness is bad, but have folks gotten nasty today?

I have to say, I think I've seen nastiness too, not just on this issue, but also with this potential Tim thread.

Like Susan, I am also hesitant to bring up specific examples because that's a can of worms we probably don't need opened.

But what I am trying to point out is that people who voice an extremely minority opinion can sometimes feel an unspoken (or even a spoken) sense of hostility because they dared to voice opinions contrary to the group.

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but maybe I'm not. I know I'm not the only one who has on occasion felt a little intimidated to speak up.

I agree with everything that Nutty said.

As far as I can tell, if 100 people are being .02% hostile, it feels worse than 2 people being .02% hostile.

How do you get those 100 to tone it down without trying to get the two to tone it down too? Good luck with that.

It pretty much always feels worse to be in this sort of minority. But I don't think I've seen a marked difference in any given poster between them as minority member and them as majority member.

Until things escalate, of course, but escalation can be started by either side ...

t dashes in to b'cy, skims, has nothing to say, blows kisses to all and dashes back out