Pardons and Absolutions

[Bozidar]

As you may know, when the leadership of our country changes it is customary for the President to pardon some people prior to the switch. His people will make a list, folks will petition to get people added to it, and the leadership has a final say in who gets absolved and who remain "in the system". Some famous pardons are nefarious characters like Richard Nixon, and Marc Rich.

Also, as we all know, the ownership here at Bronx-..uhm..NYYFans.com has changed.

Before anyone gets into making a list or anything, how does the current ownership feel about something like this? Is this an idea you'd be willing to look at? I know that a lot of the RO'd people were nothing but trouble makers and constant headaches. I also know that a lot of them were your friends and mine, and escorting them out the door wasn't always as much fun as nuking a sox troll in full blast mode. This idea isn't very original, folks have been allowed to return before, and I think someone's already mentioned this in another of the "change of ownership" threads.

I'm not asking for you to say yes to any or all of the people we may ask to get clemency, just asking if you'd be willing to listen to who and why we would like to see return to the folds of our community.

Please let us know what you think.

-- Brian

[JDPNYY]

A wonderful idea. I would request that the current ownership please consider this.

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

Agreed. Fine idea. I think there are two things to be considered if this is accepted by mods..

1) Do we know of people that want to come back?
2) Are they already back under different names?

[NYYDragoon]

Do people who were RO'd years ago still care about this site? It seems like the ones who do are back already anyhow.

EDIT: Damn you, Morgan. Damn you to hell.

[Bozidar]

Do people who were RO'd years ago still care about this site? It seems like the ones who do are back already anyhow.

EDIT: Damn you, Morgan. Damn you to hell.

if their current email address in the system is correct, they can send them a notification and let them know. if they care, they'll come back, if they don't they won't.

[bobbymagee]

IMO pardon and absolution for all RO Yankee fans... Hades for the others!!!

[BronxBaumer]

IMO pardon and absolution for all RO Yankee fans... Hades for the others!!!

And how many of your accounts will we be reactivating?

[JL25and3]

Eh. I'm fine with things they way they are.

[Octoberbaby]

Eh. I'm fine with things they way they are.

Ditto

[JDPNYY]

Eh. I'm fine with things they way they are.

Yeah, it's just great to have the Ticket Scalping Forum where there are people who's only contribution is finding a way to sell tickets here on the Forum above face value.

It's also great how Red Sox (and other) Trolls can last months and even years.

Great how some people who come back are welcome, others are banned.



Things are fine.

[JL25and3]

Yeah, it's just great to have the Ticket Scalping Forum where there are people who's only contribution is finding a way to sell tickets here on the Forum above face value.

It's also great how Red Sox (and other) Trolls can last months and even years.

Great how some people who come back are welcome, others are banned.



Things are fine.

I don't disagree, but I see that as an argument for being stricter, not for amnesty.

[JDPNYY]

I don't disagree, but I see that as an argument for being stricter, not for amnesty.

So you're not really fine with the way things are?

[b-ball-lunachick]

Before anyone gets into making a list or anything, how does the current ownership feel about something like this? Is this an idea you'd be willing to look at? I know that a lot of the RO'd people were nothing but trouble makers and constant headaches. I also know that a lot of them were your friends and mine, and escorting them out the door wasn't always as much fun as nuking a sox troll in full blast mode. This idea isn't very original, folks have been allowed to return before, and I think someone's already mentioned this in another of the "change of ownership" threads.

I'm not asking for you to say yes to any or all of the people we may ask to get clemency, just asking if you'd be willing to listen to who and why we would like to see return to the folds of our community.

I'm confused...are you suggesting a list be formed and then people have to go in and say why they do or don't want that person to be allowed back in when you're admitting that most of them have been trouble makers or headaches to not just the mods but to others here? Talk about stirring up a sh#t storm. I must be misunderstanding your suggestion...

[JL25and3]

So you're not really fine with the way things are?

If you're talking about everything in the world, there are lots of things I'm not fine with. The question posed in this thread is whether there should be amnesty for people who've been RO'd, and I'm fine with that policy remaining as it is.

[shotz]

lets just start the slate clean

[Bozidar]

I'm confused...are you suggesting a list be formed and then people have to go in and say why they do or don't want that person to be allowed back in when you're admitting that most of them have been trouble makers or headaches to not just the mods but to others here? Talk about stirring up a sh#t storm. I must be misunderstanding your suggestion...

sh#t storms are fun.

Basically yes. I'm suggesting that there are folks out there who have made mistakes here and been banned for it. Folks who otherwise might be fun and valuable members of the forum, but have made a mistake.

It'll be a little bit like Forum Survivor (everyone loved that) but in reverse. We vote people back ON to the island.

[Bozidar]

If you're talking about everything in the world, there are lots of things I'm not fine with. The question posed in this thread is whether there should be amnesty for people who've been RO'd, and I'm fine with that policy remaining as it is.

The policy as it is has been inconsistent. Ansky39 came back at least once, and I think Slippery Elm was given two different return trips. There have been others, I dont have the memory I once did, but there have definately been others.

I'm not saying we bring back the worst of the worst, but if folks here have friends who've been RO'd which they feel was unjust or unwarranted, or even that they've "served their time", then just allow us to ask.

This, actually, HAS been the policy in the past - folks who are desired here are sometimes allowed back.

[#1PaFan]

Kathy should have NEVER been banned. It just showed how much pull I had around here. LOL!

[b-ball-lunachick]

sh#t storms are fun.

Basically yes. I'm suggesting that there are folks out there who have made mistakes here and been banned for it. Folks who otherwise might be fun and valuable members of the forum, but have made a mistake.

It'll be a little bit like Forum Survivor (everyone loved that) but in reverse. We vote people back ON to the island.

Really? maybe you need to get out more Boz. If you've ever been part of it before like I have, it's not fun at all...all it did was cause fights and hurt feelings among people, most of whom were getting along fine before.

And how many veto's are allowed before someone is let back on? if the person isn't let back on after one or more vetos, then those people are upset that their friend wasn't let back on. If they are let back on, if someone did speak out againt them, then that person, who never broke the rules and was never banned, has to post with that person after all that and they are the ones feeling uncomfortable, even though they did nothing wrong...then there are people who don't want to go public and are perfectly happy the person is gone, yet they have to suffer that person again..even though they never broke the rules either.

You know I love you Boz but this is a terrible idea IMHO.

[THEBOSS84]

38special - he was a great poster. I wonder if he's posting as someone else now, but I don't think he is.

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

Mattpatt

[President Kennedy]

Really? maybe you need to get out more Boz. If you've ever been part of it before like I have, it's not fun at all...all it did was cause fights and hurt feelings among people, most of whom were getting along fine before.

And how many veto's are allowed before someone is let back on? if the person isn't let back on after one or more vetos, then those people are upset that their friend wasn't let back on. If they are let back on, if someone did speak out againt them, then that person, who never broke the rules and was never banned, has to post with that person after all that and they are the ones feeling uncomfortable, even though they did nothing wrong...then there are people who don't want to go public and are perfectly happy the person is gone, yet they have to suffer that person again..even though they never broke the rules either.

You know I love you Boz but this is a terrible idea IMHO.

What's the deal with all the angst over posting with people? These are just words on a screen. Ignore them, post in other threads, etc. The amount of personal vendettas on this forum is silly. Just report anything you think is breaking CS and let the mods deal with it.

Or am I completely missing something?

[b-ball-lunachick]

What's the deal with all the angst over posting with people? These are just words on a screen. Ignore them, post in other threads, etc. The amount of personal vendettas on this forum is silly. Just report anything you think is breaking CS and let the mods deal with it.

Or am I completely missing something?

I don't have a problem posting with most people here - what I'm talking about in this thread is someone starting a list of formerly banned people and having a public conversation/vote about letting them back on.

As for reporting them, many of these people did not do one thing to get them banned - it was months of walking the line and obnoxious behavior before they were finally banned. Why should people who weren't a PITA or didn't break the CS have to be subjected to that again?

What personal vendettas are you talking about?

[JDPNYY]

I don't have a problem posting with most people here - what I'm talking about in this thread is someone starting a list of formerly banned people and having a public conversation/vote about letting them back on.

As for reporting them, many of these people did not do one thing to get them banned - it was months of walking the line and obnoxious behavior before they were finally banned. Why should people who weren't a PITA or didn't break the CS have to be subjected to that again?

What personal vendettas are you talking about?

I don't think Boz is talking about people who were constantly breaking CS and walking the line for months. There have been people who were banned for one indiscretion or due to a misunderstanding or something along those lines. This is the person that should be considered for a pardon. Someone like Kathy. A great forummer, no CS violations. Then suddenly one day - ROd. No explanation to her. No explanation to us. Maybe this type of RO should be considered for a pardon.
Look at Mantle'sMutt. He did something (I don't know what?) years ago that got him ROd. He snuck back here (ok, not right... but it's been done - a lot), then he (stupidly) brought it up a few times. Stupid, yes. But he has been a valued forumer since his return. Should Kathy and Mutt be at least considered to be allowed back? That's the question.

I don't think anyone wants a spammer or a troll back. Heck, not even Butnud.

[yankeebot]

One person's great forumer is another's obnoxious troll. Amnesty for all or none. I lean toward none. Let them sneak back in on their own if they really want to be here.

[President Kennedy]

I don't have a problem posting with most people here - what I'm talking about in this thread is someone starting a list of formerly banned people and having a public conversation/vote about letting them back on.

As for reporting them, many of these people did not do one thing to get them banned - it was months of walking the line and obnoxious behavior before they were finally banned. Why should people who weren't a PITA or didn't break the CS have to be subjected to that again?

What personal vendettas are you talking about?

Still just words on a screen. I can't imagine a box containing comments affecting me all that much. What is it you're being subjected to? If someone is disrupting a thread, trying to take it off track/topic, that's one thing. But if it's just a personality you don't like, I don't see the big deal.

[JDPNYY]

I don't think Boz is talking about people who were constantly breaking CS and walking the line for months. There have been people who were banned for one indiscretion or due to a misunderstanding or something along those lines. This is the person that should be considered for a pardon. Someone like Kathy. A great forummer, no CS violations. Then suddenly one day - ROd. No explanation to her. No explanation to us. Maybe this type of RO should be considered for a pardon.
Look at Mantle'sMutt. He did something (I don't know what?) years ago that got him ROd. He snuck back here (ok, not right... but it's been done - a lot), then he (stupidly) brought it up a few times. Stupid, yes. But he has been a valued forumer since his return. Should Kathy and Mutt be at least considered to be allowed back? That's the question.

I don't think anyone wants a spammer or a troll back. Heck, not even Butnud.

Anyway... It's just an idea for the new ownership to consider. The decision is up to them.

[b-ball-lunachick]

I don't think Boz is talking about people who were constantly breaking CS and walking the line for months. There have been people who were banned for one indiscretion or due to a misunderstanding or something along those lines. This is the person that should be considered for a pardon. Someone like Kathy. A great forummer, no CS violations. Then suddenly one day - ROd. No explanation to her. No explanation to us. Maybe this type of RO should be considered for a pardon.
Look at Mantle'sMutt. He did something (I don't know what?) years ago that got him ROd. He snuck back here (ok, not right... but it's been done - a lot), then he (stupidly) brought it up a few times. Stupid, yes. But he has been a valued forumer since his return. Should Kathy and Mutt be at least considered to be allowed back? That's the question.

I don't think anyone wants a spammer or a troll back. Heck, not even Butnud.

But that's the thing John - where is the line there? I know of someone (not any of the people you listed) who was banned that a lot of people were very upset about...they didn't realize a lot of stuff that happened through PMs that contributed to their banning...yet everyone was up in arms about what a great person they were and outraged that they were banned...it's not that easy to get banned here. So if this person now gets added to a public thread, then that person gets put back on or people have to go on and publicly go against some of their own friends? I'm sorry - that's just not right.

I know of people who have gotten second chances by going to the mods and making their case for coming back with a clean slate with a promise to change their behavior... some have gotten that chance and I think that's great..at least that way, it's done in private and with the mods only because they are really the only ones who know the whole story.

[ShaneTravis]

Mattpatt

Sure he is not already here?

I could swear that Mattpatt is reincarnated as another poster.

38special would be welcome back. The guy knew the minors.

DooleyWomack was loads of fun. And Sierra Mist is a must get.

[JDPNYY]

But that's the thing John - where is the line there? I know of someone (not any of the people you listed) who was banned that a lot of people were very upset about...they didn't realize a lot of stuff that happened through PMs that contributed to their banning...yet everyone was up in arms about what a great person they were and outraged that they were banned...it's not that easy to get banned here. So if this person now gets added to a public thread, then that person gets put back on or people have to go on and publicly go against some of their own friends? I'm sorry - that's just not right.

I know of people who have gotten second chances by going to the mods and making their case for coming back with a clean slate with a promise to change their behavior... some have gotten that chance and I think that's great..at least that way, it's done in private and with the mods only because they are really the only ones who know the whole story.

Obviously if there was an instance where there was a lot of stuff that happened through PMs that person wouldn't be approved. The Moderators have that info.

Again, this is just something for new ownership to consider.

[b-ball-lunachick]

One person's great forumer is another's obnoxious troll.

This can't be stressed enough IMHO...

[b-ball-lunachick]

Obviously if there was an instance where there was a lot of stuff that happened through PMs that person wouldn't be approved. The Moderators have that info.

Again, this is just something for new ownership to consider.

But it's not JUST through PM's..like bot stated, one person's great forumer is another one's troll.

I hope it's not considered. If they do, I hope people can post the person's name publicly and let people vote privately..and if there's one dissent, the person doesn't come back...

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

Sure he is not already here?

I could swear that Mattpatt is reincarnated as another poster.

Who? And if so, they should be changed back to Mattpatt, it takes me a while to like someone, and without their screen name they start anew, hated.

[yankeebot]

But it's not JUST through PM's..like bot stated, one person's great forumer is another one's troll.

I hope it's not considered. If they do, I hope people can post the person's name publicly and let people vote privately..and if there's one dissent, the person doesn't come back...

If it's considered at all, I hope the decisions would just be made by the mods. This place is entirely too cliquish for any voting.

[ShaneTravis]

Who? And if so, they should be changed back to Mattpatt, it takes me a while to like someone, and without their screen name they start anew, hated.

lol

I hate to out someone, because I could totally be wrong. But you do pal around with him on here.

Seriously, this could be a rather horrible idea. Some posters in the past should be nowhere near a computer.

With new ownership, we should first start by eliminating the redsox thread. The whole thing, just blow it up.

I would feel bad for Hildy,Judyblume, and a few others. But in war certain casualties are to be expected.

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

PM who you think it is.

[JL25and3]

If it's considered at all, I hope the decisions would just be made by the mods. This place is entirely too cliquish for any voting.

I agree. Even just a public discussion of specific cases is likely to get people here pissed off at each other. I see it doing more harm than good.

[b-ball-lunachick]

I agree. Even just a public discussion of specific cases is likely to get people here pissed off at each other. I see it doing more harm than good.

couldn't agree more...that's exactly how I feel and why I'm so against it...

[YankeePride1967]

I agree. Even just a public discussion of specific cases is likely to get people here pissed off at each other. I see it doing more harm than good.

I agree with this 100%. if someone wants back. Let them contact the mods. Starting a poll of "should poster X be reinstated" would cause nothing but trouble.

[BronxBaumer]

I agree with this 100%. if someone wants back. Let them contact the mods. Starting a poll of "should poster X be reinstated" would cause nothing but trouble.

I think SNY would ask for their money back if they came in here to see the community cannibalizing itself on such polls. Friendships would be broken, feelings would be hurt, lives could be lost.

My point is not that I would like to see these polls, but that I would like to see the moderation team more open to clemency. There is no doubt that once you're out, you're out. Very few exceptions to this rule occur.

[JDPNYY]

I think it's all a moot point given Jim's further explanation that he'll be even more involved in the running of the ship for the near future. The way it was first explained by Jim it looked like he was bowing out altogether. Since that isn't the case... this idea doesn't make sense on any level.

[Tifoso]

I disagree

[JDPNYY]

I wonder what the heck Lou disagrees with.

[Tifoso]

Hehehehehe

Reinstating banned users

[Hildy910]

With new ownership, we should first start by eliminating the redsox thread. The whole thing, just blow it up.

I would feel bad for Hildy,Judyblume, and a few others. But in war certain casualties are to be expected.

Heh, that's okay, I kind of agree. That thread offers very little of substantive value these days. I'd just go hang out in the LOT all the time

[Octoberbaby]

I don't have a problem posting with most people here - what I'm talking about in this thread is someone starting a list of formerly banned people and having a public conversation/vote about letting them back on.

As for reporting them, many of these people did not do one thing to get them banned - it was months of walking the line and obnoxious behavior before they were finally banned. Why should people who weren't a PITA or didn't break the CS have to be subjected to that again?

What personal vendettas are you talking about?

That is an important point. I was under the impression that a person was not just ROed with one indiscretion, that they were given a few warnings first. If someone can't control themselves after a couple of warnings then obviously they must have deserved to be ROed. Why open up a can of worms to let posters like than come back. I agree with you that it is a bad idea.

[Hellsing]

I'd prefer a mob rule approach to banning/unbanning people. If someone breaks the TS, there should be a Yay or Nay poll to decide their fate. 65% Yay, they stay.

Certain members could assume the role of a defense lawyer for the offender.

It would be like rotten tomatoes! Anyone less than 65% fresh is on the cusp of being RO'd.

[allybear]

I'd prefer a mob rule approach to banning/unbanning people. If someone breaks the TS, there should be a Yay or Nay poll to decide their fate. 65% Yay, they stay.

Certain members could assume the role of a defense lawyer for the offender.

It would be like rotten tomatoes! Anyone less than 65% fresh is on the cusp of being RO'd.

That sounds like it could do more to destroy the place than anything SNY might plan!

[THEBOSS84]

I'd prefer a mob rule approach to banning/unbanning people. If someone breaks the TS, there should be a Yay or Nay poll to decide their fate. 65% Yay, they stay.

Certain members could assume the role of a defense lawyer for the offender.

It would be like rotten tomatoes! Anyone less than 65% fresh is on the cusp of being RO'd.

I actually love this idea.

[Tifoso]

I'd prefer a mob rule approach to banning/unbanning people. If someone breaks the TS, there should be a Yay or Nay poll to decide their fate. 65% Yay, they stay.

Certain members could assume the role of a defense lawyer for the offender.

It would be like rotten tomatoes! Anyone less than 65% fresh is on the cusp of being RO'd.

I can say with almost complete certainty: ain't happenin