Petition to readmit chicagosam

If you make the rules, you can change the rules.

some people engage in malicious trolling.

some people are simply malicious trolls.

Was he given a warning prior to the ban?

As mentioned by others I think the key thing is whether or not Sam wants to return. From my limited contact with him I would guess that he wouldn't want to although I could be wrong.

As for allowing others to return. I don't have a problem with that. f you don't like them then keep away from them and use the ignore button.

I just read something where he says he was not. He said that it was blamed on delivery problems with the PMs and the problems also affected the e-mails.

Who knows, other people run the show and can do whatever they want.

Sure, but it'll never happen. And as has been noted, he may not care to return.

What about all the others who were banned for spurious reasons?

I don't think he is interested in coming back, but if he was allowed to come back, and saw all of the support, maybe he would.

Chicagosam had multiple accounts?

Definitely, i don't understand the people in the web. I remember him as a nice and correct guy, i can't imagine him trolling with different nicks.

OK, let's clear something up, and this is NOT aimed at Sam, but banned members, and banning in general. It's a problem.

First, 1/2 of the major banned members, are still here, and gloat about it on the "other" site. They chat about how clever they are, for getting around the system, and are encouraged by other members there to do it, and are given helpful tips on the process. The only thing that they don't have, is access to their original screen-names/personae. To me, that in and of itself is an issue. Most have never done the "time" for their "crime". That is, they didn't abide by their "punishment" in any way. Instead, of examining what they did "wrong", they went, unrepentant, around the message being sent to them ("We won't tolerate your kind and/or behaviour"), and returned to their same disruption. They broke the rules of the community two-fold.

Second, before I go sounding like a hard-liner, for the above, if rules are rules, then apply them evenly. If we're going to have bans, then BAN people. And NO, you can't pick and choose. You can't say one is disruptive and must go, while you stand up and say for another that he's just "misunderstood" and needs more understanding and a "chance". If you ban one member for a certain type of comment/behaviour, then ban ALL members that make that type of comment/behaviour. I just see some of the biggest sticklers and rule book-thumpers, being the biggest offenders of not seeing those rules applying to everyone (this is NOT just towards Mods, but also members).

Third, while I think, for the sake of fairness, that there should be an acknowledged warning before most bannings, no one can seriously hide behind, "but I/they don't even know why." Seriously? You read the sign-up information, and you still joined as a 15yr old, or you knowingly created multiple accounts, posted nude avatars, were constantly offensive/hateful, harassed someone, or spammed the place, etc., and yet no one has ANY idea why there was a banning? REALLY???

Finally, while the general public is never privy to why there was a banning, and can only speculate, due to the mighty "Privacy", and those speculations may or may not be accurate, there's also the actual truth. A banning may be a horrible breach of the TOS, it may be something petty, but it could also be that because we, the general community, don't know the exact reasons for bannings, that there could actually be more to the stories than we know. In fact, it could be that the bannings we consider "unwarranted", we would actually be screaming for, if we really DID know the full story. It's the unfortunate side of the community not having even the slightest hint of why a banning occurs, and no, I don't find all cases of this to be contrary to the thought expressed above. For example, there was a "woman" that I used to PM with, and was always great to me, but in Chat, was actually a totally hateful bitch. I was stunned at the banning (but later, even more so, by the full story).

ditto

Yes he did. He is a great guy. I miss him. Having multiple accounts is a violation of the T.O.S.

Then why is Knight/Wonderboy/ScaredLittleBoy still here?

Answer: read Novice's post for more.

Sam wasn't trolling with the two accounts. Like many others, he was leaving one account behind and starting a new one. Mistakes sometimes happen when a poster does this (see: Bronx, Wonderboy, etc.) Had he had a chance to explain that and not been on the bad side of a moderator, he may still be here. Who knows?

Now that Danny is resting in peace, perhaps the moderators will reconsider the idea of reinstating people who may have been banned and could be allowed back? I doubt it, but since he was the main reason that a few resisted the idea, maybe it is time to reconsider?

As we used to debate, there would have to be a good reason and all that, and, of course, it would be the moderators call.

It would not be easy.

For every Sam or Spladle that people want back there will be people who want others reinstated as well who are not as "popular" or "even-tempered." Stronzo is an example of a polarizing figure. There are several others.

Matthew and the gang were all talking about where we think we original mods went wrong. I think the "privacy" issue was the first mistake, especially in the event of multiple accounts. After we banned DMW, we should have exposed ALL of his multiple accounts for the board to see. I actually began to and was asked to edit my posts to another effect.

As Matthew notes, NOT exposing these people rewards them, allows them to fool more people, and leaves those attached to the accounts ripe for more abuse.

The banning of Spladle (prompted by Rob_E and argued for by Heath, most notably) was a second mistake in that it led to the banning of several members who were considered a part of this place, love them or hate them. That is a vote I wish I had back.

I am glad I am connect with Sam, Spladle and even Stronzo on the other site. I doubt that any mod will want to consider what I have to say given how critical I have been. All I can say is what often appears one way when you are a moderator, appears differently when you aren't.

We certainly had good intentions and made our share of mistakes. This is hindsight. Things are always clearer when you have time and distance from which to view them. With the site as big as it is, banning someone and keeping them away is next to impossible.

It seems that former Mods are more in favor of giving banned members another chance, than current ones are.

A site that can not change, can not flourish as it should.

Or let banned members join for a $12 a year fee. Many businesses change their minds when you put a $ out there.

I *THINK* it's under the technicality of, "he never logged in again to the accounts he left behind" clause. In these cases, I really believe that the old accounts should be "closed", "converted to Guest" or whatever the Admin function is that would prevent an "accidental" accessing of the old account. There has definitely been the case of a legit mistake of a user opening the old account that was cached, and no sense anyone getting banned over something so simple, and also removes the temptation from those who aren't as honest.

Sorry S, I know I said I'd leave this subject alone but it is too difficult not to post - I am weak

Three, or more - but no he wasn't trolling - he was ousted on a technicality - I don't know why - but I have my guesses, which are, essentially, irrelevant.

To answer the OP - yes the ban should be lifted - I don't think the outcome will be any different though.

And back to the first sentence. Sam has asked, repeatedly, that he not be the "LPSG bannings" poster boy - I don't think Hick knew that and anyway the post was more about whether those who remember Sam want his ban lifted, not about the circumstances or 'justice' of the ban. So I'm not even criticising - just reminding folk that the man in question would probably rather you all went and read something a bit more interesting:

Summer Stories