Banned a trustee?

By the way, Dave, I never made any judgment that Malcolm was up to mischief. In my mind, I had classified it as suspicious and that is really all of the judgment I could make seeing as I wasn't standing over his shoulder at the keyboard when he made the submission.

First off, I do not know everyone here, but I wonder why some of you are asking questions about Malcolm
while I understand others involvements which have encouraged me to look into it..

Malcolm is a friend of mine so how do you think I feel. I hate this whole election
I never reviewed the post/edit in question until tonight.
I want you all to let this go until Austin Stan and I can review the timeline and the edits and put everything in perspective.

Thank you for your patients.

KilnRed;11165 wrote: Jarrod, can you provide where I said either he or Sean must ask to return? All I'm looking for is them to tell me or Brad that they wish to return. That's enough evidence for me to see and determine that they are have cooled their jets, so to speak. It's a simple process and I don't feel it is a foul by a moderator, at all, to use this standard.

True, you didn't use the word "ask", so to a degree I stand corrected. However, they must still come to you or Brad and be granted permission to return, so what's the difference??? My point continues to be, they left on their own accord, they should be able to return in the same fashion. You stepped in after the fact and removed that ability with your decision to ban them. IMHO, the decision to return should be theirs alone (obviously they'd have to contact you to get posts restored, but that's a separate matter.)

BTW- I'm not arguing that you don't have the authority to ban someone, and one must normally apply for reinstatement. It's the post-facto nature of these two bannings that I disagree with.

JWise;11169 wrote: True, you didn't use the word "ask", so to a degree I stand corrected. However, they must still come to you or Brad and be granted permission to return, so what's the difference??? My point continues to be, they left on their own accord, they should be able to return in the same fashion. You stepped in after the fact and removed that ability with your decision to ban them. IMHO, the decision to return should be theirs alone (obviously they'd have to contact you to get posts restored, but that's a separate matter.)

BTW- I'm not arguing that you don't have the authority to ban someone, and one must normally apply for reinstatement. It's the post-facto nature of these two bannings that I disagree with.

Okay, well again, I guess we can agree to disagree and have considered your input. Consider the amount of immaturity that one must have to publicly state they're discontinuing their participation though. Why not just leave, Jarrod? Is it necessary to tell the masses. One might make the assessment that this action is consistent with that of a child, acting out in this way. Some call this being a "cry baby." If you wish to make your separation public and out of frustration, a moderator can/will see to it that your reinstatement is also public. They'll be no sneaking back in..

Jarrod please read post #44

Thank you for your patients.

Jarrod, consider how much "benefit of the doubt" has already been extended. We've passed on so many opportunities to take action before because of the confidence we have in these people, as respected individuals in our community, to discontinue their negative posts. Instead, a couple have chosen just simply to discontinue their participation altogether. Quite telling and equally disappointing.