Recently banned

[skcin]

Just wanted to know everyone's opinions on whether or not those recently banned should be allowed to return. I mean, it's not really up to us, but maybe if enough people felt the same way the new owner (welcome & congrats, btw) would consider reinstating some, if not all of them? I'll do a poll, but if you'd like to explain your vote, please do.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

New owner, clean slate. I don't think it would bge fair to let some back and not others... even though I do think some were banned unnecessarily. The people worthy of banning will probably show their true colours anyway if they are allowed back and would end up getting banned again! JMO

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by Gypsy-Rhiannon

New owner, clean slate. I don't think it would bge fair to let some back and not others... even though I do think some were banned unnecessarily. The people worthy of banning will probably show their true colours anyway if they are allowed back and would end up getting banned again! JMO

That is a good point, I voted for the second option though...before reading your post.

But I think there is a difference in bannings. Some were banned unnecessarily -some with no previous record of trouble-making or anything, after being provoked or for one little slip up in a long history.

It seems like there were some others who made it their goal in life to taunt and poke at people on this board all the time and who were contantly starting things...

So anyway. Bottom line: I'd like to see some of the banning reversed

[Sarah]

I also have to go with some and not others.

If all the bannings were "created equally", I'd be for treating them like they're the same.. but they aren't.

Trolls happen from time to time. When you finally get rid of it, don't let it back in for Christ's sake.

As for people who get banned over difference of opinion or grudge or whatever else... if they weren't a ruckus on the board, let 'em back.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by Sarah

If all the bannings were "created equally", I'd be for treating them like they're the same.. but they aren't.

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

[Sarah]

Your point is a good one, Hejira. But I'm a bit biased... there might be one or two people whom I don't want to see back.

Where is that puking icon when I really need it?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skcin]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

Good idea. I like the idea of a petition too, but it should probably be private, maybe through PM to the new owner or a mod. This way there won't be arguments over who wants who back, or who has is out for who. etc. And I don't know if 100 would work, there's not many people around here these days. Maybe 50?

Originally Posted by Sarah

Your point is a good one, Hejira. But I'm a bit biased... there might be one or two people whom I don't want to see back.

Where is that puking icon when I really need it?

I agree, but I'm willing to bet most would agree with you on those 1 or 2 people. In theory, if there was a petition or vote of some kind, majority rules.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally Posted by Sarah

I also have to go with some and not others.

If all the bannings were "created equally", I'd be for treating them like they're the same.. but they aren't.

Trolls happen from time to time. When you finally get rid of it, don't let it back in for Christ's sake.

As for people who get banned over difference of opinion or grudge or whatever else... if they weren't a ruckus on the board, let 'em back.

That's a good point!

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

This sounds like a fair solution

[BTFLCHLD]

Some should be allowed back, but not others.

IMO those that were banned, and want to be considered for reinstatement, should themselves send a request for reconsideration to [email protected] and then a final decision, perhaps after consultation with mods, be made by the new owner.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

IMO those that were banned, and want to be considered for reinstatement, should themselves send a request for reconsideration to [email protected] and then a final decision, perhaps after consultation with mods, be made by the new owner.

As long as this works better than trying to get bans lifted on a certain other board!

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by Gypsy-Rhiannon

a certain other board!

hereafter referred to as that which shall not be named.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

i completely agree with this. the zero tolerance policy is bull****.

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

I agree, the one strike policy should give to all the recently banned the benefit of doubt. About the petition for every bannee I disagree, Ledgies who have more interaction would have far more chances to get back in than the less known ones. Popularity shouldn't make the difference.
I would like though if there was a kind of last chance after the third ban.

Romy