Author Topic: Drewish has been.... unbanned  (Read 1511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Louie

  • Actually three chimps tag-teaming a keyboard.
  • God Emeritus
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
  • Let the elephant make everything kushtee.
Drewish has been.... unbanned
« on: February 10, 2015, 03:39:03 PM »
Dear members,

Three years ago Beleth proposed an interesting thought experiment: what would it take to let the oft-banned Jim Henson of sock puppetry, Awesome220, return to the forums? Since then the broader question has come up on occasion. Do we, the forum moderators, take the view that people can change, better themselves and earn a second chance, or is a permanent ban exactly as described on the tin? We never formulated a policy, but the vague consensus was that each case would have be judged on its own merits. In other words: we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. And then we never came to it. Until now.

Andrew Clunn has asked us if we will allow him to overturn his permanent ban and return to the forums. After lengthy and careful deliberation, we've decided to grant him this request. We would like to explain the how and why to you.

First, a bit of background. Most of you will remember Andrew. A long-term member of the forum, he could never quite be called uncontroversial. His political views and occassionally fiery conduct brought him into conflict with several people. Over two years ago, Andrew posted an extremely vile remark directed at another member. I won't go into details. It will suffice to say that this got him permanently banned, pretty much instantly.

We heard little from Andrew over the next years. Unlike Awesome220, he didn't appear to be interested in flinging puppet after puppet at our e-bastion like a crazed sockcatapuppetpulteer. One thing we did hear was that he sought out the member he had insulted and apologised to her, an apology she recalls as 'heartfelt'. Long after that (last week in fact), the moderators received a message from Andrew, in which he admitted his wrongdoing and asked to be let back in, even though he realises that he has very little right to hope for an affirmative reply.

Andrew violated the rules and was banned as a result. He apologised to the aggrieved party, which was well-received. His message to the moderators was found by us to be a genuine and honest reflection on the circumstances surrounding his banning. Several other members have told us over the years that they missed Andrew's contributions to debates - even if they only served as a way for them to sharpen their own arguments. In light of these considerations, we've granted his request. Clunn's back.
There are conditions to his return. His membership will be subject to a probationary period of a year. If during this year he accumulates three warnings, the permanent ban will be reinstated.

We'd like to emphasise that going out of your way to provoke Andrew will not be accepted. The forum rules apply, as always. This wasn't an easy decision to make, and although we know that several of you will be less than overjoyed to see Andrew return, we hope that you will understand what made us come to it. Everyone deserves a second chance. Except for Hitler. Screw that guy.

The Mod Team


* I'm not shying away from using his real name, because for most of his membership, his forum handle was 'andrewclunn'. That leaves little enough to the imagination. I think the name was also part of his e-mail address. Just saying.
"It can't end like this. Tell them I said something." - Pancho Villa's last words (1923).

 

personate-rain