Ydnac

[agingjb]

I'm never happy about eternal bans, which imply an unresolvable state of personal hostility. But it is the way this board works, which we must accept, or go elsewhere.

I do wish I knew where those banned contributors who I did value - there are a few - now post.

[PetersCreek]

I'm never happy about eternal bans, which imply an unresolvable state of personal hostility.

While it's true the we ban members when we feel serious, problematic behavior is practically unresolvable, I don't agree that hostility is implied in our policy.

[ToSeek]

Candy has been reinstated.

[John Mendenhall]

Granted, I’m not one of the quiet ones, but I’m curious - what would you like to hear? An opinion on Candy coming back? Something else? Do you have an opinion you would like to state?

Yes, I realized after posting that my request was too broad. This thread is about ydnac. My thought was, how many others will want to request reinstatement.

[CJSF]

He who could be named after a Scottish instrument?

I think the majority of banned members were either trying to do it for a "badge of honor" or having "achieved" it, took their lumps and have moved on. I believe (with no evidence, of course) that this will be a rare occasion.

In any case, welcome back, Candy!

CJSF

[The Backroad Astronomer]

Well I don't remember Candy, but welcome back.

[Chuck]

I hope her first posts meets our wild expectations.

[BetaDust]

Candy has been reinstated.

Welcome back to Bau... Cosmoquest! Candy!


-- Dennis

[Superluminal]

A new day has dawned. Lord have mercy on us all.

[grant hutchison]

A new day has dawned. Lord have mercy on us all.

You're not really selling this.

Grant Hutchison

[Swift]

A new day has dawned. Lord have mercy on us all.

Since I doubt a supreme being exists, and if they do, they don't seem to involve themselves in such trivial human concerns, we'll have to create our own mercy.

[Roger E. Moore]

Since I doubt a supreme being exists, and if they do, they don't seem to involve themselves in such trivial human concerns, we'll have to create our own mercy.

And grateful I am for it, too!

Uh, I don't know why I said that.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

We are already leaving in an interesting time what is a little more.

[publiusr]

I liked her.

[Jens]

I liked her.

Well you can still like her then .

[Extravoice]

Every time I read this thread title, I think of the intro to the ELO song “Fire on high.” To paraphrase, “The ban is reversible, but time is not.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grant hutchison]

Are we enlivened yet?

Grant Hutchison

[Superluminal]

I spoke to Candy a couple of days ago. I asked if she had posted yet. She said she's really busy with a new condo. But I have a feeling that when you least expect it, boom.

[bknight]

Since I doubt a supreme being exists, and if they do, they don't seem to involve themselves in such trivial human concerns, we'll have to create our own mercy.

Why modify the rules/actions for one individual? Just because she says she has mellowed out now. This makes no sense to me as a non moderator/administrator. How many others would have to be considered?

[Swift]

Why modify the rules/actions for one individual? Just because she says she has mellowed out now. This makes no sense to me as a non moderator/administrator. How many others would have to be considered?

I'm not sure how your comment bknight relates to mine. I was not suggesting modifying the rules for one individual. This is not the first time we've removed a ban for someone and the Moderation Team has a pretty standard way to deal with such things.

I was just making a semi-funny response to Superluminal's "Lord have mercy on us all." They may have been trying to be funny, but if they are serious, I don't think this is going to be any kind of big deal; it certainly hasn't been so far.

[slang]

Why modify the rules/actions for one individual? Just because she says she has mellowed out now. This makes no sense to me as a non moderator/administrator. How many others would have to be considered?

Why would others have to be considered?

No rule was modified. An action was un-done, as has occasionally happened before. The decision was arrived at after careful consideration of circumstances by the moderator team. Assuming it was "just because she says [...]" does injustice to that process. I think that makes the question about how it affects many others having to be reconsidered moot, or do I misunderstand you?

[PetersCreek]

Why modify the rules/actions for one individual? Just because she says she has mellowed out now. This makes no sense to me as a non moderator/administrator. How many others would have to be considered?

By and large, the only ones that would have to be considered are those that ask to be considered. This isn't anything new or rule-bending. We have considered other cases over the years, in which banned members asked to be reinstated. Most were denied but some were successful in their petitions. The rules in no way prohibit the reverasal of sanctions and the forum software specifically provides a feature for it.

[bknight]

By and large, the only ones that would have to be considered are those that ask to be considered. This isn't anything new or rule-bending. We have considered other cases over the years, in which banned members asked to be reinstated. Most were denied but some were successful in their petitions. The rules in no way prohibit the reverasal of sanctions and the forum software specifically provides a feature for it.

OK, good luck then.

[Rolling Stone]

Tension, drama, discussion, debate, and then finally - nothing.

That was a bit anticlimactic.

[Superluminal]

I speak to Candy every now and then. She's busy working from home and renovating her condo.

[CJSF]

Well, if she read this thread she might have decided not to bother, TBH.

CJSF
P.S.
I'd love to see her back.

[Trebuchet]

Oh, Candy, where art thou?

[The Backroad Astronomer]

So Trebuchet wants Candy...
https://youtu.be/WBN19FnT13Y