>I disagree: Message #1468721 If Michel reinstates him, he has to change his policy and it has to apply to everyone.
>
>It's interesting that we agree (in our disagreement) ,but perhaps for different reasons. While I agree that dropping an uncut f-bomb is pretty bad, take note that I didn't raise the issue of action against him (and not that Michel is known for providing tons of information, he can verify that I didn't run to him and say, "Mike Beane told me to ____ off!!!")
>
>The bigger issue is that he went to Michel, in the OPEN, and asked for his account to be cut off/banned/whatever. It's one thing to receive medicine on behalf of soemone with the message, "it's for your own good".....it's another to beg for medicine and then ask (via whim) the next day to reverse it. Let him live with his decision for a few months.

To me the issue is not specifically what he did that constituted a ban (I'll refer to that message I show above again). His actions didn't harm me and I could care less if he remains banned or is given access. However, I think Mike is under the false impression that he got banned from the UT because he requested it in his other message. He did request it, but he also committed an offense that triggers banning by 1) the site policy and 2) Michel's historical behavior in enforcing that policy. Mike posted that message prior to his message requesting a ban and he admitted committing the offense to me in a separate post here on the UT (again before he requested to be banned).

That message constitutes a ban per the site policies. To me the issue is the site policies must be adhered to by all and enforced on all or else they are a farce. If Michel changes the site policies so be it. That is his perogative as the owner of the site. However, for previous bans, there were too many messages discussing it (and Michel's policies) to count. Michel did not change his policy for those individuals. If he changes his site policy now for one special case showing favoritism for that individual, then those policies are a farce.

He could change the duration of a ban but still it should be posted under his policies. Did I miss it and the site policies have already been changed?