Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

Isn't it a bit extreme to ban him? I didn't post any responses to the note but I did read the whole thing. I don't think it was his intention to start a huge debate, that's just what happened. The title may have been a bit out there but it was just a reflection of the video.

I'm sure there are countless videos many people find funny that would offend some people. It may not be rape (a much more sensitive topic) it's joking about but it's the same outcome.

So should we have an intellectual discussion on rape or satire? Or how about how censorship?

"There are certain topics that are off limits to comedians: JFK, Aids, the Holocaust. The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny-I need to see this play like I need a hole in the head. And I hope to someday live in a world where a person could tell a hilarious Aids joke. Still one of my dreams. "

- Michael Scott, (from the US version of The Office)

While I disagree with how you handled it, this IS your treehouse, and you can kick out whoever you want, I do think you probably owe at least an email telling rich that he's not welcome to come and play at your house anymore.

I must agree that I think it's a bit harsh. I'd like to believe his intentions were nowhere near the realm of where things ended up. But that may not be apparent to everyone.

He'll be missed, for my part.

@Alexsuraci - this is a conversation that person and I/guys have had more than once. Remember, he was once a 9rules member. This wasn't a one time thing.

@thesirdanny - he knows (why would you think he didn't?) and I'm sure he's not surprised. Again, it's a topic we've had many times but the truth is: cleaning up after the drama he creates has gotten old.

Like I said the only reason I posted this was to stop the "where is" notes. My intent is not to openly criticize or censor and I'm sure there will be people that don't agree. On his own site he can post whatever he wants (for example, he can tell someone their writing is shit on his site) but here, we are trying to keep up a standard.

@hthth: he used to be a 9rules member and he's been warned more than once. You're kind of too new to know the entire back story.

To everyone else:

So let me be blunt: you think we're supposed to keep warning people or do you think when warned the warning should be followed?

If you think the warning should be followed then there should be no problem with this decision. If you think we're supposed to keep warning...well...everything has its limits.

Rich should have explained why he found the video funny. In hindsight, that is clear to me, and I hope to him as well. Those of us who initially responded (this includes myself) should have also explained why we found it funny.

Writing/presenting information online can be tricky, and we all fall down on occasion. By not explaining ourselves to the fullest, our comments, one-liners and phrases can be taken entirely out of context. They can hurt, offend and trouble people when the opposite effect is the original intent.

@Tyme: I think that if you already had multiple conversations with him about his conduct, then you are well in your right to take whatever actions you see fit. A warning will lose it's meaning after so many times if no action is taken.

I read the post he made shortly after he posted it and before it became a hot topic. I thought it was in poor taste so I kept it moving. I'm not one to debate with people, so I chose not to leave a comment. But if this was my site, and I had already had discussions with him prior about his posts/comments/whatever then I would've gotten rid of him too.

I'm new to the community, so I didn't know the guy but that post was my first impression of him and it wasn't the best one.

I missed the thread -- I miss quite a lot since the RSS feeds have been down -- but I've since watched the video and it seems like you're saying you expelled a long term part of the community because he posted a video you don't like.

It's a satire. That's what The Onion is about. I think expecting anybody considering posting this video to launch an in-depth analysis into how media coverage of events is sensationalist is expecting a little too much from people.

And I thought he left his 9rules membership of his own accord. That's certainly how I remember it from when it happened. I can't remember it being as a punishment for anything.

Whatever. This is your roost to rule over but I want you to know that some of your users disagree with this decision. Rich isn't the one losing face at this point.

It's a pity it got out of hand and turned in to a slanging match, but banning Rich seems harsh. There were better candidates for banning in that conversation - some of the comments by other people had become hysterical and resorted to name calling and weren't pleasant to read. It's hard to see a reason for banning Rich - some of the other people in that conversation ought to think about their own conduct though.

Quite a sad episode all in all.

@Oli - if you missed the thread then you missed the conversation that went on. No one had a problem with the video. If there was a problem with the video does it make sense to you that I would say feel free to repost it? No, it wouldn't, would it Oli?

You missed the conversation so you missed me saying I wasn't going to say anything and how others spoke up saying how offensive it was. Perhaps instead of making judgments you should reserve comments once you have the facts.

@Ollie - exactly. Don't expect complete strangers to understand what you mean. Say what you mean. Properly express yourself. A lot of people walked away with completely false impressions of the people who responded in that note because of the way it went down. And it's happening more and more - only surrounding his notes.

When he told someone their writing was shit, I understood what he meant but cleaning up after that episode to only come back a couple days later to get another one. And the one before that. And the one before that. Enough is enough.

And of course today his response to the whole issue (which most of you missed) was just going to start some more stuff. I ended it.

I am talking to him via email.

Thanks for the explanation. Like you said. It's good to stop the where is it notes.

I have no feelings one way or the other.

@Oli - if you missed the thread then you missed the conversation that went on. No one had a problem with the video. If there was a problem with the video does it make sense to you that I would say feel free to repost it? No, it wouldn't, would it Oli?

To put that video in Humor with the title it had and then say, "I’m sorry, but I found this hilarious" isn’t 9rules. Which is why that person hasn’t been a 9rules member for a long time.

The banning is only harsh when you look at it from the angle of this one Note. It was not an easy decision, but there are only so many times you can talk to someone privately over the course of 8+ months and they continue to toe the line. I partly blame myself for not taking the Note down immediately when I saw it because I knew the type of reaction it would get. Again, this decision is not based on one Note and we understand why some people find it unfair since he was liked, but we believe we were fair with the amount of times we communicated with him to help him understand our boundaries.

@publicenergy: I don't play favorites and what you refer to hasn't escaped my attention. Trust that. :)

I don't see what 's wrong with having different reactions to different things. It allows people look at things differently. It is too bad that one can not read others opinions and disagree without always trying to denigrate the other person.

I would first just like to say that I've thought long and hard about the following email. It's not my intention to judge anyone, simply state the facts as they seem apparent to me:

In my mind, deleting the entire note and all of its replies is spitting in the face of everyone who took time to respond to the note itself and everyone else within it. There was nothing outrageous about the note itself. It sounds more like you, Tyme, were simply offended.

The way that you responded to Oli above indicates that you're speaking through emotions rather than the rational, non-biased and collected leader of a popular online forum.

This is blatant censorship and it saddens me. When I first began participating in notes this seemed like a wonderful place to discuss all types of issues, where people of varying backgrounds could give their opinions and we were all free to take them or leave them.

Recently you've mention that you've deleted many posts because there were "too many about the iPod", so a guy like Dale comes along with a little humor to inject into the conversations and he's shut down, then you delete a member for posting a video. So this is not just based on one decision, but many recent decisions.

This is the last note I'll ever post to on 9Rules, please feel free to ban or delete me or whatever decision befits a Ruler.

@clicknathan: I too am partially in two minds on this subject, but if I were asked to fall on one side of the fence, I would have to fall on Tyme's side. Not because I'm a member, but because the note was started, and therefore ultimately continued in the incorrect way. Allow me to explain:

Had a discussion started about the ridiculous nature of some elements of the media, the over-sensationalised and seemingly moral-free reporting that some broadcasting companies take, then some of the responses in Rich's note would have been mature, thought-provoking and mind-opening.

Had a discussion started about rape, the horrific nature and consequences of such a crime, then equally so many of the responses in the original note would have been eye-opening, shocking and educational.

But the note was started poorly, continued poorly and essentially was a mix of two different discussions colliding in what became a (at times) quite personal and immature exercise of throwing words between each other. Of course, some of the comments still stood out, but it seemed as though they were in the wrong place.

Should the note have been deleted? Maybe not, but it seemed (in my opinion) as though it wasn't going to die quietly. I am unaware of "too many about the ipod" posts being deleted, but at the end of the day a forum needs moderating. As uncomfortable it may seem sometimes, such a popular place as 9rules needs people (more than one) to make decisions for the better good.

That's my 2 cents, anyhow.

Recently you've mention that you've deleted many posts because there were "too many about the iPod", so a guy like Dale comes along with a little humor to inject into the conversations and he's shut down, then you delete a member for posting a video. So this is not just based on one decision, but many recent decisions.

If someone is going to post an iPod Touch Note talking about something that is already in current discussion somewhere else then yes I will delete it and that was the case. It isn't the case of too many iPod notes so we must control the amount, but a case where the same discussion is happening in multiple places.

Dale was another example where sure it was funny at first, but then we found he wasn't just trying to be funny. We talked with him privately plenty of times and there are only so many chances we can give. If we deleted someone just for posting a video I can see where you are coming from, but you are not reading what I am typing and that is to say this was not the first time and there are only so many apologies and promises to do better we can take.

The final straw is not posting a Note or a video, but coming back with an attitude to say there is no reason to apologize for something so blatantly wrong. It's this kind of attitude that we have had to deal with over a period of time. Everyone wants freedom to say whatever they want and they also want us to protect them when things get out of hand. They also want a place where they can have great discussions, but don't want us to try and maintain such a place. Again it is my fault for letting it escalate to the point it did and I have no problem in admitting my failure to react and it does suck that it had to come to this.

If you have a problem with how this was handled you can take it up with me.

The entire episode turned out sad, indeed.

Those of us who are not rulers/administrators of 9rules have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, or what has transpired with specific individuals over the months.

Scrivs, this is now a public discussion of what happened.

Nearly everyone who has responded has a problem with how it was handled, that's why we're here. Talking about it. Mostly peacefully. We are taking it up with 9rules. In public.

9rules decided that this was going to be handled publicly. And that's where 9rules lost face, in my eyes.

In my mind, deleting the entire note and all of its replies is spitting in the face of everyone who took time to respond to the note itself and everyone else within it.

Being one of the contributors to that note, I don't feel like being spit in the face. I thanked her and felt relieved when I saw it'd been deleted.

Like Ollie says, the note started off on the wrong foot. Rational discussions took place after judgement had fallen — which convoluted all consequent replies and made the whole affair very difficult to deal with.

@Danny: Yes, I know this is public and that's why I'm here. What are you talking about?

@thesirdanny - that is because there is absolutely no way we could have exited him from the community without someone bringing it up. See, we've tried that in the past to quietly deal with something and it doesn't work. We tried that with Dale...what happened? He was missed instantly and someone asked about it. We did not respond. I decided to be honest about it before people jumped to the wrong conclusions...or tried to stop that from happening. I understand people like him but he not above the community rules we have set.

Most people are glad the note was deleted, matter of fact this was the first mention it should stay up.

It sounds more like you, Tyme, were simply offended.

The way that you responded to Oli above indicates that you're speaking through emotions rather than the rational, non-biased and collected leader of a popular online forum.

If was "that" offended I would have removed the note when it was first posted. Remember, I said nothing at first and the note started to deteriorate with the Fox news stuff way before I said anything. My response politely brought up no women were responding because they were offended and more started to respond that they WERE offended. There was a lot going on in that note - none of it what it should have been. So yeah, it was deleted.

Oli is getting this tone from me because we've been through this before about this person so once again the one thing that doesn't seem to be sinking in is that we've been there, done that with Rich. I warned him. Scrivs warned him. We did more for him and bent over backwards for him than we normally do.

Not that the effort is appreciated and that is where we messed up. We shouldn't have done that.

I had a decision to make because it couldn't continue. Every couple of days there was some sort of drama.

What saddens me is that we're here everyday with you guys. We try to help the best we can, laugh and try to have some fun. You'd think after all this time there should be some trust built up that we DON'T make rash decisions. Because I'm the girl I get the emotional tag all the time (and if you're female you'll know how sickening that is) but I was not emotional when I made it and I guarantee you Scrivs wouldn't back it if it was....rather insulting you think he would.

Obviously with all that we do, and how hard we try, you don't respect the decisions we make...the ones we have the right to make. That is not an emotional response - it's fact based on what was said as responses in this note.

You're right Tyme, we're just a bunch of no good dirty rotten Noters who have no appreciation for what the 9rulers do. We should all be banned for under-appreciation.

Great way to take a single issue and demonize your entire community.

A+ for effort

F for Fail.

Way to run with it Danny. Maybe you missed the entire point of what she said. Some people are acting as though we acted on a whim based only on what they see publicly and when something like this happens the evil overlords must be stopped. As I mentioned before I can understand why there would be emotion around this user since a lot of people shared strong feelings about him so it is to be expected.

I'm not even sure you can demonize an online community and if that was possible I am fairly certain the Pokemon Community did that a long time ago. Only thing we failed at is realizing it is Saturday and we should be out enjoying our weekend.

I am glad it was deleted, as it was becoming a verbal sparring, not a discussion, but an argumentative situation.

I am also aware that there is a lot that happens, that we don't know about or are privvy to (justifiably). It isn't for us to know these facts.

In my opinion, the Rulers shouldn't have to justify their actions that they take regarding their own website. It is theirs, not mine, not anybody else's. They have certain standards they have set for the site, and they try to maintain and meet them as best they can.

Oli is getting this tone from me because we've been through this before about this person so once again the one thing that doesn't seem to be sinking in is that we've been there, done that with Rich.

He saw you breaking your own code of conduct when replying to me in the past. There were reasons you replied as you did but he didn't know of them. That's why we had that conversation and it would just be rude of me not to return the favour.

Rich has never made 9rules an unpleasant place to be -- at least not for me. I respect that each person's mileage varies but in terms of universal positive points vs universal negative points, banning Rich degrades the quality of Notes.

All I can say is the majority of posters in this thread seem to agree. Some were in the "offensive thread" and they still agree. Sure, you might want to smudge those votes away as strong feelings for Rich -- I know I've been his bondage slave for a long time -- but that doesn't change the fact that people like him and I'd wager that if it were put to a proper vote, he'd be reinstated. I know it's not a democracy though.

It is your site. I'm just saying it's all the worse for the lack of Rich.

Maybe you missed the point where she called everyone disrespectful and unappreciative?

Maybe you missed my sarcasm in my first sentence (of my last post).

Maybe if we're still here discussing this, (and other things in other notes),
that:
1. we actually care about the community here?
2. realize that there IS more to this than has been revealed?
3. respect what you've done here in your efforts to keep 9rules to mean 'quality'
4. respect your decision to make your rules, ban people as you like, and moderate and censor your community as you see fit. (see my first post in this thread)/

However, Tyme and Scrivs, both of you have continued to beat the "Rich is an asshole, anyone who supports Rich is unappreciative and disrespectful" drum, and that's where I take great offense. You have established a community and now you're calling us a bunch of cunts.

You fail to realize this and/or fail to admit it. That's where you fail. Enjoy your saturday.

Stop the drama danny, and wow, way to show your respect of women - using "cunt" in the negative. Maybe another note...why is "cunt" always used this way

I'm only sorry it was deleted because i had linked it to a post I wrote last night and there were some good notes inside that note.

First of all, don't question Tyme or Scriv's commitment to this community. They have built this place from the ground up, and work hard to maintain it everyday. I know I don't post much and a lot of you probably don't know me, but I've been here reading notes everyday for the last 8 months or so. I know that somehow all of the Rulers find time to keep 9rules running smoothly even with their jobs, social lives, families, and friends. I never spoke to Rich, but I read most of his notes in the time period I stated above. I actually liked having him around, and I thought he was insightful a majority of the time. However, Tyme and Scrivs made a decision, and I know that just about all of their decisions in the past have been for the good of this community. If they say this one will be too, then I don't see any reason to doubt them. They haven't led you astray in the past, I can't see them doing it in the future. From what the Rulers have said, Rich had many opportunities to prevent this from happening. This is a community and there are rules that we are required to follow. It's a contract we enter into when we choose to use this site. Even if you believe Rich should still be allowed here (as I tend to), one member does not determine the quality of the entire notes community. If you want Rich's input, you have every right to keep in touch with him.

Tyme I do not envy your job but I think you made the right call and I think it is great you and Scrivs and are not allowing him to continue breaking the rules. It was made very clear:

1) Rich was warned
2) He broke the rules anyway
3) He was banned

Why is anyone upset that someone who broke the rules was banned? Being liked doesn't make anyone exempt. I signed up for notes and I carefully read the rules.

"The internet is a great tool for meeting people, learning things and having fun. You might not agree with some of the things you read on 9rules, but we expect users to have mutual respect for each other.

# 9rules reserves the right to remove discussions that encourage racism, bigotry, violence, hatred or profanity.
# 9rules reserves the right to remove offensive and inappropriate discussions that violate our Code of Conduct.
#You are responsible for your actions and activities on 9rules, and we may ban users who violate our Terms of Service.
#Content posted full-text into a Topic or Notes discussion is not permitted, even if you are the author of the content. Please quote from the article if needed but do not copy and paste content from another site directly into a Topic or Notes discussion. We consider this spam."

Rich said a man was a shit writer. He did write a note where he clipped/pasted what he wrote some place else here. He did tell a guy he should leave the community (since when is it his place to speak for Scrivs and Tyme?). That was last week. It would probably get very ugly if anyone went back further. It doesn't matter what good he did, everyone else is doing good and following the rules. How many chances does he get?

Most communities don't warn. When you sign up they ask if you understand the rules. By posting you agree that you do. Break the rules say goodbye - that is what zero policy means. Rich was lucky he got the chances he did.

@AJamms: You may wish to revisit your argument. I'll put it straight out: I don't like the fact that Rich was banned, especially not with this issue as the straw that broke the camel's back. (To say that is to concede that there may well have been a lot of straw already.) The fact that I don't like it, however, does not define whether I agree or disagree with this decision or those leading up to this. Although I have my opinions -- it is impossible not to, being at least somewhat knowledgeable of the situation -- I don't believe I'm in a position to make that call, nor do I care to elevate myself to that position.

Whit this in mind, let's take a look at what you wrote:

Rich said a man was a shit writer.

To be fair, that guy had come in here asking to be critiqued, then turned around and said these laymen weren't good enough to be critiquing this stuff. The "shit writer" statement was pretty much an ego bursting move. I don't agree with it, it's not my style. But given the context of the conversation that label may well have been deserved.

He did write a note where he clipped/pasted what he wrote some place else here.

In that same note, in response to the "shit writer". I did the same thing. We both did it because the guy deleted two perfectly legitimate comments from his blog, from a post in which the author called him a racist and myself a thief, then, by deleting the responses, denied us our right to response. So we responded here by pasting what we had written, then deleted there. The content, therefore was not published anywhere else.

He did tell a guy he should leave the community (since when is it his place to speak for Scrivs and Tyme?).

That was also to the same guy, on the same thread. The same guy who had begun insulting people who had given him advice in good faith; the same guy who had called him (and Tyme) a racist for no good reason; the same guy who had previously said something along the lines of "Well, this is my last post here."

That was last week.

That was one post.

Again, while I didn't always agree with Rich's methods (he tends to be very sharp with his tongue), in the instance of which you speak I totally agreed with him.

Most communities don't warn.

That's a lie. Of course, neither of us can back this up with numbers, so we're either both right or both wrong.

When you sign up they ask if you understand the rules. By posting you agree that you do. Break the rules say goodbye - that is what zero policy means.

Last I checked there wasn't a "zero [tolerance] policy" here, at least not from whence you've quoted. Also, herein lies the application of common sense. Someone comes here and their first post is a spammy "COME VISIT OUR MIDDLE AGED PERSONS CHAT SITE!!!" they're banned. They've added nothing to the community and their deletion won't take anything good away. Someone who has various posts and is recognized as a community member then breaks a rule will usually be granted leniency, and be warned when they get out of line. This is what's called applying common sense. I believe Scrivs, Mike and Tyme have done this fairly well, especially given the changes over the past few months.

As for the matter at hand, I'll keep my opinion. I will, however, input that an outright, permanent ban, instead of a temporary one, does seem on its face to be a bit harsh, given his level of involvement. However, I don't know what went on behind the scenes, so my opinion here the equivalent of a guess into how to handle this.

I really have nothing against rich at all, but he did seem to go the extra mile to antagonize staff here. Maybe that's an incorrect perception, but it sure seemed to me that he went to the line, balanced on it, and kept putting his toe over.

I agree with Gnorb (seeing as I was part of the shit writer note, and that the guy deserved what he got from Rich).

I liked Rich. He was a good member (most of the time), and his comments were usually insightful and well thought-out (as well as being harsh and lacking in diplomacy). I believe he was a good guy, Just a little lacking in the social niceties department. But I liked his passion and contribution to notes nevertheless. my.9r WILL be different without him.

I don't like him being banned, but my personal preferences has nothing to do with whether it was a correct move or not. And, in this case, Tyme has presented the reasoning behind her move, and it is substantiated.

Sigh. It's hard being a leader. Give the rulers a break.

I'm not going to rake over old ground as think there's been enough of that. I've been quiet recently observing things on notes for a few reasons and some of them include the notes themselves. Not referring to this note more the chainsaw happy ones and a some others - but there were some comments by a person banned in that case that made me question whether such comments should be not removed. Did I shout at Tyme? Did I hit Scrivs about the head virtually with a big stick? No. Did I wait and let the people that run this site make a decision? Yes.

Ultimately you can be for or against a banning and people will be on both sides - banning is not done lightly around here and although I don't have the figures I've seen thankfully few bans having to occur. What as notes users you don't see is what probably occurs to Tyme's, Scriv's or Mike's inboxes. Do you really think they don't have complaints and need to respond?

I'd like to add that the way I see it this is the 9rules house and we all should keep to the house rules. Yes, I did like Rich, yes I will miss him and half hope he can redeem himself again - but bottom line is it's not my choice and I will only have a partial picture over this. Nobody knows what work goes on behind the scenes with working with notes users who have shown an issue and private discussions which have been hinted at occurring prior to bannings.

My point really is that in judging the judgments you really need to have the full picture and this is a community yes but it's a community on the 9rules site. None of us own the site. None of us put the hard work into Ali, Ali2 or any version of 9rules. None of us have the flooded inboxes with complaints (if I was offended with my hard skin you can bet there was a lot of complaints). It's not just adults that can read these notes - impressionable ages can also. Perhaps that is an argument for an adult note tag to 9rules and some site filter - that's another point and not a light decision though. Ultimately you play in someone's yard you play by their rules. None of us have a right to judge. We can say we're not happy but arguing and raking over old ground is pointless as Tyme stated in this note - it's done. None of the 9rules leaders have ever shown egos so big they go on banning for the sake of it power trips - the moment they did I would be the first to leave. Fine say you're not happy but don't insult about it. Words online have power and we all should be aware of what words we use even in the casual form of notes.

To round up what was meant to be a small note but is growing, my blood is mildly boiling at any insinuation that gender would have anything to do with a decision Tyme would make. Women are not a pawn to their emotions, the days of us all being simpering fools cooing at cute things and cowering at bad things are long gone back into the fantasy literature that was the source of the slander. I've yet to see Tyme ask for smelling salts as she has the 'vapors' ;) Insert Jane Austin stereotype here please.

I guess without knowing the full backstory on what had been going on, it's hard for me to understand. Was the note offensive? Not to me personally, but I could see it offending others.

Like I said, I don't know what all has transpired. But I've enjoyed a majority of Rich's posts and comments. He was entertaining and intelligent, which is a definite gift (especially after the Dale incident).

So, you did what you felt you had to do, and I respect that. I've never known Tyme to be anything but fair, so I have to stick with what I know.

But I am disappointed it came to banning Rich. His presence will be missed here. I definitely see it as a loss for the notes community.

I'll miss Rich and continue to respect Tyme and team for moderating the place. Oh, Danny did raise some good points.

I'll preface this by saying that I have a friendship with Richard and therefore, my opinion is biased. That said, I'd still like to add my 2 cents: I think the vast majority of his comments added to the community. I respect the decision to ban him only because I do not know all the behind-the-scenes details and, lacking that knowledge, I cannot say whether the ban was "fair" or not.

However, I must say that if the ban is based on his Notes contributions, nothing Rich has ever said has seems to warrant a ban. Yes, he is sharp-tongued. Yes, he is controversial. And no, he does not apologize for any of that. But that's who he is and who he has always been. His sharp wit and humor, I'm sure, is partly what got his blog added to 9rules in the first place. edit: It's also what makes us love him so fiercely.

9rules has always seemed to be a place of equals. Yes, we know who the founders and owners are but, insofar as I've always understood it, we are a community of peers. There can be dissension and misunderstandings, but "backtalk" is a parent-child interaction, not a peer-peer interaction. Maybe freedom of speech is not so free as on a person's own blog, but posting controversial notes and voicing a strong opinion without the usual sugar-coating doesn't seem so horribly offensive.

That said, I will cover my behind and once again emphasize that this is my opinion based on my knowledge of the issue. There is almost certainly background information that I do not possess, so my conclusion is rather one-sided. However, if the triumvirate doesn't plan to release those details (and I understand why you wouldn't), then please understand that your community will base its opinion on the known facts. Facts which don't seem to back up the final action.

Erin: Seconded on all points. Superb post.

We have lost two of our best posters this month: Mary and Rich. Two people who never unnecessarily rounded the corners of their verbiage or its meaning.

Now I know Mary's departure had nothing to do with 9rules and I don't want to devalue her friends' and family's loss but is there any reason punishments (like in Rich's case) need to be so final?

Couldn't there be another level in there: a time-ban? That seems like a better way to deal with occasionally flammable elements of a community in a way that gives them a reason not to retaliate against the decision where they might if you cut them off completely.

Yeah, so delete what I said and paste Erin's comment in its place. :)

Or, and this is a really cunning plan: could Rich buy his way back in with his 1000-odd points that he earned as a result of being a good community member?

Let me say this again, Rich sealed his own fate on this one. It's over and done with.