Gordie

Little late, but I just noticed this article naming @GMac as the prankster.

Removed because we're bogging down the thread and neither one of us are adding anything to the conversation. If you want to continue the conversation, feel free to PM me.

Removed because we're bogging down the thread and neither one of us are adding anything to the conversation.

Fair enough. One week seems meaninglessly short to me, but I respect that you guys reached a different conclusion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the call to suspend him. I simply believe that one week isn't long enough to serve as either an effective punishment or an effective deterrent. Seems kind of like a way to say you suspended him without really suspending him. If you really think somebody deserves a suspension, then you ought to really suspend them. If you don't think they deserve a significant suspension, then maybe they don't deserve a suspension at all. Perhaps there's a more fitting alternative, like a stern warning and the promise that continued misbehaviour will result in a meaningful suspension. I'm surprised to hear you say that you made the decision to suspend him based on factors other than the infraction. In all fairness, wouldn't you say that the decision to suspend somebody should be made strictly and solely based on the infraction or infractions?

Not to say that a suspension shouldn't be taken seriously, but the length of suspension, one week, seems like the shortest possible that can be effectively imposed and still be realistically considered a suspension. Sure, you could suspend someone for a day, an hour, or a minute, but to what practical purpose? I don't know if this suspension is intended to be a deterrent or a punishment, but it doesn't seem long enough to be either, effectively. If BBTV did something significant enough to deserve a suspension, then he deserves a significant suspension. If the length of suspension isn't meaningful, then the suspension itself is meaningless. It seems pointless to suspend someone for so short a period that it serves as little more than a demonstration of your ability to suspend them. If the point is to give someone a warning, then give them a warning. Tell them they have one strike, and next time they'll be suspended for a significant amount of time. One week is next to nothing, and a one week suspension is practically pointless, not serious.

One week? If he didn't do anything serious enough to warrant a serious suspension, is he seriously deserving of a suspension at all?

While we're tiptoeing through that neighbourhood, I've been meaning to talk to you about your avatar, Glenn. I don't know who he is, but elderly, privileged white guys performing power salutes make me uncomfortable.

Maybe sometime early in 2019?

@pollux

16 10 13

12 3 1

18 4 15

Thanks! I'm glad you like it.

20 6 23