Joe reinstatement?

[Fearless]

Joe, a banned DNForum member, has asked to be reinstated. Since I'm not aware of Joe's infractions I'm putting it to a vote of the DNForum membership. If 2/3 of the membership votes to allow him back, he will be unbanned. Otherwise the members have spoken. Joe has agreed to putting this to a vote. You have 3 days to cast your vote.


Thanks,

Greg

[nameslave]

I honestly don't think that there will be more than 1/3 (one-third) of the membership that actually vote (not to say for or against anything)!

FYI: I'm a polisci/public admin major

[Fearless]

If the vote ended right now he'd be unbanned. 2 for 1 against. Everyone doesn't need to vote.

[DropWizard.com]

For what it's worth.

Joe is an absolute nutcase. He posts constant meaningless rambling, ranting posts. He's been kicked off more boards than anybody I ever saw.

He does not learn, he does not listen.

I am not one to speak negatively of anybody I believe we're all entitled to our points of view and beliefs in life but Joe is bad news.

My two bits worth

[DropWizard.com]

Greg, go over to

http://admittance.com/board.html

do a search for joe. Look for other posts regarding alias's he uses when asked to stop etc etc etc.

[NamePopper.com]

I voted yes for Joe to be allowed to return.

Like Greg--I haven't been aware of exactly what he did wrong in the past-- or had any problems with him myself.
A couple of his posts gave me a good chuckle--and he let people list their names for sale at his site for no charge.

Everybody should be allowed to change their ways--I say let him back in.

[nameslave]

>gregr: If the vote ended right now he'd be unbanned. 2 for 1 against. Everyone doesn't need to vote.

I see. You actually meant 2/3 WHO VOTE. But no offence, there is a little loophole in here. Take your last posting: if only 3 members vote by the end of the day ... hmm ... 3 days ... and 2 go for unbanning, does it consitute a legitimate voting (when less than 1% of the membership turn out). My point is that we might need to set a cut-off line (threshold) for an acceptable turnout rate, say 15%.

[Fearless]

Originally posted by gmartfin
Greg, go over to

http://admittance.com/board.html

do a search for joe. Look for other posts regarding alias's he uses when asked to stop etc etc etc.

If he gets reinstated and becomes a problem again, he can just as easily get banned again. I think he loved this place. That's why I got an email from him.

[Omni]

Originally posted by gregr



If he gets reinstated and becomes a problem again, he can just as easily get banned again. I think he loved this place. That's why I got an email from him.

Nuff said, unban him

[Fearless]

Originally posted by nameslave
>gregr: If the vote ended right now he'd be unbanned. 2 for 1 against. Everyone doesn't need to vote.

I see. You actually meant 2/3 WHO VOTE. But no offence, there is a little loophole in here. Take your last posting: if only 3 members vote by the end of the day ... hmm ... 3 days ... and 2 go for unbanning, does it consitute a legitimate voting (when less than 1% of the membership turn out). My point is that we might need to set a cut-off line (threshold) for an acceptable turnout rate, say 15%.

Just like every election I've voted in, doesn't matter what the turn-out is. In 3 days we should get a good sampling of the regulars.

[LewR]

I for one have never seen this person add a positive to ANY forum he has posted in. Maybe you need a constant complainer - but for my taste - NOT.

Always remember, the devils advocate inspires many to become religious..LOL - However, when they screw with other's business dealings - they deserve to rot in hell....

JMHO

[sunshine]

Joe's a nutcase.

My best advice.. NEVER EVER EVER give him your email addy.

[O.C.]

He's a disturbed individual. No one should give him contact information or tell him anything you wouldn't want posted on public forums out of context.


He crosses lots of lines. Why has he been banned at every forum I've ever seen him in? Well except one, SICTalk.com, where the resident teenagers like mocking him.



I think it's very nice of people to give him another chance to prove himself. He does enjoy posting at dn forums.


If any of you want to know why I voted no, start reading this thread:
http://sictalk.com/forum/showthread.php?&threadid=8003



Those are the kinds of posts we are going to get.


On the other hand, his antics can be mildly entertaining when they are not destructive to any one but himself. Sadly, usually his posts escalate to being destructive to others (posting Dan's email for example).

[Tippy]

I voted Yes.

Like you said it's very easy to give him the boot, once again, if he acts up.

Mike

[Fearless]

Not looking good for Joe.

Originally posted by gregr



If he gets reinstated and becomes a problem again, he can just as easily get banned again. I think he loved this place. That's why I got an email from him.

totally agree w/ you.

new management, new policy.. yeah!!

give me $200 bucks. :p

[DropWizard.com]

Just a small suggestion to you Greg

Have a poll regarding Joe. But you only get to vote if you know him and have seen firsthand his behaviour.

then see what the stats are like

[abrams1117]

Let Joe back in, he registered 700+ domains.... and if you saw them, you would have mercy on him.

Originally posted by abrams1117
Let Joe back in, he registered 700+ domains.... and if you saw them, you would have mercy on him.

may God have mercy on him.

give everyone one domain and let him in....
:razz: