I'm fine with any decision, but I do have to disagree with the wording that says his behavior of attacking another member is being rewarded with reinstatement. That's like saying letting someone who robbed a bank out of prison after five years is rewarding him for robbing the bank. It's not. It's acknowledging that the punishment has been sufficient enough to give the person another chance. Yes, I know he got lots of chances, but now he's been banned for eight months and that seems good enough for me.
And I don't think I'm "the issue." Frankly, calling people who have reasonable but opposing views to your own "the issue" might make you "the issue." Unlike many of Bob's posts, the discussion here has been (almost entirely) civil, rational, reasonable, and not personal.
I do not know if he's changed his ways. I do not know the details of any personal attack, though, given his public posts, I do not at all question that he personally and inappropriately attacked someone. I just believe, like some others, that a year ban might be a bit extreme, so I'd reinstate him on a probationary period.
That said, not knowing the facts, my "vote" is pretty meaningless, and the Admin has proven for years to be a very fair and competent person. So I'm happy to defer. Certainly, the forums have been more peaceful since his departure.
v3
vrooomed wrote:
Thank you for reporting FACTS from the actual event and not second-hand regurgitation from the person who was banned.
This is the true reason why Bob was banned. Attacking another member. Not becausehe was annoying and we thought he should go away.
Because he directly, personally ATTACKED another member.
Again, if you feel this behavior should be rewarded with re-instatement, you're the issue.
forestcards wrote:
I will elaborate on some other facts.
I reported one of BOBSCARDZ’s posts the day before he was banned. I don’t claim that it was the reason he was banned, but I have a feeling it was a factor. After reporting the post I received no follow up from Admin or any other member of the site regarding the matter.
As vroomed mentioned above, the report was related to Bob attacking another member personally. It had nothing to do with cards or Bob’s previous disagreements with members about errors, variations, etc. It was a direct, personal attack. Bob had been asked to stop attacking that person in that same post but he instead chose to double down and continue the attack.
[The original post has had all the comments removed, but you can see the dates line up with the facts: original post]
I was not the person his attacks were directed at. I had previously had no communication with the person his attacks were directed at. However, I felt they were severe enough to report them.
If you have any feelings that he should still be given a second chance, or that he has changed his ways, please consider his current profile. At the time of writing this post he still negatively references the individual he attacked in that post I reported. He has long assumed that it was the person he attacked who was responsible for reporting him and has continued to attack them in his own way.
I reported him. If he feels the ban was due to that report, then he can blame me.
