Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Coming Trainwreck
A deeply ugly scenario is shaping up. Consider the strong possibility that (a) Donald Trump through sheer petulance and poor judgment, has actually managed to be culpable of obstruction with respect to the May grand jury subpoena and (b) the morally deficient Twitter-slave currently running the Department of Justice under the watchful eye of the malignant buffoon who is currently POTUS is on a desperate course to indict the former president on whatever grounds possible and will do so regardless. Consider the possibility that Trump is guilty but of crimes for which no Democrat would ever be prosecuted.
The likelihood that there is a great risk to national security from the contents of the documents at Mar-a-Lago strikes me as infinitesimally small. Anything of military or strategic value has likely been vacuumed up by Chinese techno espionage, Eric Swalwell’s pillow talk or everyday leaks, embassy parties, and/or old-fashioned bribery. But the left will tell us that Garland saved us from utter disaster at the hands of our enemies. And most irritating of all will be that the mentally challenged who still believe the dossier proved Trump’s collusion with Putin will feel vindicated.
Why did Trump hang onto that material? Even conceding his authority to declassify, the bulk of that stuff is still the property of the archive. If he wanted evidence of the Russiagate hoax, for example, was it not possible to identify and summarize each relevant document and then insist on some secure handling by the archive to prevent surreptitious destruction or removal by the conspirators?
My concern is that Trump’s reasons for hanging onto that material may turn out to be not very cogent, much less exculpatory and it will have needlessly opened him up to his enemies.
The sheer ugliness of the national reaction to such a prosecution, the media gloating, the self-righteous pap from the usual suspects, and the seething rage of the right… It has not happened yet but it already seems tiresome.
I would like to fantasize that in the aftermath of this fiasco, the GOP would respectfully decline to re-nominate a wounded Trump, instead elect a strong replacement with a popular mandate and sizeable congressional majorities and then effect vengeance and even prosecute the swamp creatures to the same measure as those lowlife scum have gone after conservatives in general and Trump affiliates in particular. Would that it were a time of true, slashing defunding of the left with fun side events like stripping security clearance and barring government employment for the 51 “experts” who declared Hunter Biden’s laptop to be disinformation.
But that will not happen. There will likely be a GOP President other than Trump and a GOP Congress but the left will recede only slightly, whine continuously, persist in rhetorical attacks, and somehow impose a near-mandatory amnesia about their crimes and atrocities on the grounds that it would be “extreme” or “divisive” or “partisan” even to point out their foul, recent history much less impose accountability. And Republicans will be too polite and say that they are “looking forward, not backward” and we will limp along until the left launches its next new offensive from their unmolested sanctuaries.
Published in General
Maybe the other bans weren’t “permanent?” The explanations could be entertaining.
I would love to answer these charges, Annefy, but we are really getting off the topic of this post. And that’s probably my fault. How about if you write a fresh post laying out your charges?
Did he eject them or her? I guess Ricochet has gone woke. What are your pronouns, @RandyWeivoda? I’d list mine but that might violate the CoC.
@randyweivoda , are you going to do that with everyone who’s been banned and come back without problems? Or just 1787Lib?
And inconsistent as well.
I think we should all give Randy a break. He’s like a police officer, he’s unpleasant when he’s doing his job, be we all need them.
And if 1787Lib was sentenced to Ricochet life imprisonment, and has escaped back in, well I can see that the law is the law, but is there’s no such thing as parole?
A while back, someone said that a few people who had been banned for life were particularly abusive toward the moderators. So I guess it wasn’t just continued violation of the code of conduct. That, however, is only one side of the story.
Yes, I understand that, but there are other members who were banned for life, and are back and have admitted it openly, and taking their chances. Yet they aren’t being sought out. I guess I’m just saying five to ten with possibility of parole sounds about right.
I haven’t followed it closely, so I didn’t know there were that many who had attempted a comeback.
My point is that some who were permanently banned were actually invited to re-join. So no, a “permanent ban” is not, in fact, a permanent ban.
So now it appears cancel culture has come to Ricochet.
Why this guy, whoever he is? Did he break wind in ricochet’s main office?
Does Ricochet HAVE a main office?
I do recall a brief discussion, some years ago (I believe it was started by a member) about the possibility of one or more banned members returning. IIRC, TPTB who had authored the thread on which the idea was broached said that such things might be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that if a member who’d been banned would like to be reinstated, he or she could contact them directly and ask for a review. One or two other members weighed in and said that they may know of perhaps one other member who might like to return. They were told the same thing.
IIRC, the one banned member whose name was specifically mentioned in that discussion said–when contacted during the course of it by another member–that he wasn’t interested in coming back.
The approach outlined above sounds fair to me. Of course, it depends on the banned member acknowledging who he or she is–at least to TPTB–in order to initiate such a discussion, and to necessarily clear the air. Coming back under the radar, under a different name, not acknowledging who you are (sometimes it’s pretty easy to figure out), and then dropping hints all over the place about another banning if I say thus-and-such and ping me here to find out the details, which may resonate with a small group of cognoscenti but do not inform the membership-at-large doesn’t strike me as such an honest or good-faith attempt to return on good terms, and doesn’t recommend the member to me. But that’s just me.
Perhaps you’re aware of other examples of “solicitation” for the return of banned members, but I’m not.
It’s always baffled me that members who are banned here (few in number, but loud of voice), go elsewhere on the web to trash this site and its members, often publicly, and yet some of them still insist on finding their way back in here, where they often continue to show their contempt for the site. The person I suspect @elrando is referencing above is by no means the only one, although she is by far the most prolific and inventive (must be the shoes). It’s been a problem since the days of Kenneth who had several sock puppet accounts in his own right until his untimely passing put an end to them once and for all.
A case-by-case approach to allowing banned members back in is far more difficult for the managers to manage. It requires that the first move be made by the banned member, and it requires an honest and fair laying out of cards on the table, and then a decision one way or the other which, when it is made, is final.
Given the comments on this post, were I one of TPTB here, I’d think very hard and very seriously about any element of subjectivity or individual dealing in the process of dealing with banned members, and (much as I agree with the concept myself) I’d chuck out the idea of a “case-by-case” review, if every such discussion is going to result in accusations of bad faith and unfairness, and imputations of double-dealing by those in charge of the process. Were I in charge, the policy going forward would be that no banned member–no matter what–would be given consideration for return. Because that’s the easiest way to manage it, and it avoids the sort of conversation and confrontation that’s unfortunately taken over this thread.
I don’t understand the comment about “cancel culture” in the quote above.
El Rando is actually still @RandyWeivoda of course.
I don’t disagree with you @she. But my comments are in response to: banned for life is banned for life. Obviously that is not true.
And if @elrando wants to make it so, that’s there’s no redemption and no return to Any banned member, then that is, to me, cancel culture.
BY at one time asked a specific member to return. Banned member demurred (If memory serves he was banned after a particularly contentious exchange with me.) At the time BY asked for other suggestions of banned members who should be invited to return with the promise he would reach out.
He did not reach out to the member I suggested, whose breaking of the CofC paled in comparison to the member I am referring to in my previous paragraph
El Rando is still @randyweivoda and Carlotta is still @charlotte etc, etc…
Yes, I don’t think we are, at the heart of it, too much at odds.
Still (She says, having checked to see if her memory is leading her astray), the conversational thread about the named member coming back wasn’t initiated by BY; it was broached by a member. BY’s response to the suggestion was to say, “ask [him!],” and then to say that Ricochet believes in second chances and that if said member “wants to come back, we’d be open to discussing conditions that would make it possible for that to occur.” In response to your request about other banned members, BY said that “we are willing to evaluate these on a case by case basis but there is no blanket amnesty. The bar for restoring a banned member is very high and in some cases is insurmountable. If there is someone you’d like us to consider, PM me” (comment #540). I’m sorry (it sounds like) you didn’t get much of a response.
It may be a small point, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize that conversation as one in which BY was proactively soliciting a particular member’s return. He was responding to a suggestion from a member that a particular member who had been banned might be invited to come back.
As is often the case here, the mechanics of the process aren’t always clear or consistent.
As to whether “banned for life” means “banned for life”: Most who get themselves banned here have already burned up second and third chances before they’re kicked out the door. Some do behave so egregiously that, IMHO, they should never be allowed back in. But if there are to be exceptions, I think they need to come at the behest of the member, and that the grown-up way to do that is for that member to contact the site, make his (or her) case–necessarily explaining why things will be different this time. A decision will be made, yea or nay, and the world will move on, hopefully without a bunch of fallout on threads about other things. The decision will be perceived as unfair by some, entirely right by others, and that will be that.
I think a banned member who is found to have simply shown up under another name ought to be summarily–and, yes, permanently–booted, no questions asked.
Unfortunately, as with many things here, that rather sane and humane approach, with its appeal to reason and adult behavior by the party banned isn’t codified anywhere. And so we continue to have conversations like this.
The alternative–no banned member may ever return, “banned for life means banned for life,” is much simpler, even if it may appear less humane in some cases where there may be room for mercy, as in the case of a member who sincerely wants to return, and who hasn’t spent his or her time in the wilderness orchestrating a campaign or participating in public conversations calling us all useful idiots or scum of the earth, and/or openly wishing and hoping for the destruction of the site.
I still don’t see any of this as “cancel culture.” I can attest to the fact that people around here aren’t banned for the views that they hold. They’re banned because they’ve shown themselves unable to play nicely with others, or because they’ve been dishonest in their dealings with others. Thankfully, it’s a rare event.
Even if said member, after months of lurking on the home page, decided on a lark to just see? I was not approached by anyone to try and I am not here to cause trouble. Mainly, what did it was knowing that the members section is much more informative and lively than the main feed, that’s why I tried it. Like I said before, I don’t have an axe to grind. I know the mentality of the PTB and I know that at a whim my time here is fleeting.
Also for the record, its’ been 4/5 years and I never tried to come back after the ban, unlike some others whose story I am familiar. I am not trying to put one over on the censors. I decided to try and create an account. It let me in. Here I am.
I think this is a key point, She. People, to my knowledge, almost always get multiple chances to clean up their act. And like spoiled children, they continue to “forget” their commitment to reform and misbehave again. Given the second and third chances allowed, when they can’t reform, I think banned for life is appropriate. And I agree with your definition regarding cancel culture. That is not cancel culture.
I am also not looking to re-litigate the past. If y’all are okay with me here, then I am okay not sloshing my Scotch during the cocktail party discussions. That’s all.
In fairness to all, I think the site needs to clarify its position on whether or not a banned member may be offered grace and a chance to return. Or whether “banned for life,” means “banned for life.” If we do believe in a subsequent chance, as was the case laid out in the thread I linked to a while back, then the terms for getting such a chance also need to be spelled out and applied consistently. They can’t be unique for, or different for, every member who might want to come back.
I don’t believe that allowing banned members back on a “case by case” basis should be off the table. But if it’s not off the table, then it should be dealt with seriously, and not via popular vote, administrative inaction, or managerial fiat, and members should always be free to speak their minds). But the ground rules, and who are the decision makers in the matter, should be clear, and right now, neither of those things is the case.
Further discussion, as was mentioned some time ago, probably requires a members-only thread on the subject. The only reason I came back into this one and offered an opinion is for approximately the same reason people rob banks. Because that’s where the money is. This is where the people who’ve been beating this topic are, and sometimes starting another thread somewhere else, in the middle of such a discussion loses many of the participants and much of the momentum by dividing it in two.
If no-one’s taken up the torch in the next 24 hours or so, I’ll write one.
I’m the newbie here and don’t know any of the people or past practices involved. But your one previous comment contains what seems to me the salient issue–before any banned previous member comes back on, he/she must seek reinstatement rather than simply signing back up under a different name. That just seems like “doing things the right way”. The immigrant coming into the US illegally may or may not have our sympathies because of the circumstances of the arrival. But I think we all agree that the immigrant should go through the process first.
So too with reinstatement to Ricochet. Pete Rose will never simply “appear” in Cooperstown. He needs permission to get in. If others have been quietly “let back in” after first surreptitiously re-joining, then I would advocate changing that practice. On the other hand, if banned members were let back in by TBTB after requesting reinstatement, then I have no problem with that.
I guess that’s kind of the point. We don’t know you to intelligently be “okay” with you or not. If you were previously banned, then it only seems proper to request reinstatement. Coming in under a different name/identity just strikes me as the wrong way to do it, regardless of your current conduct.
I might agree with you if the ban was recent. It was years ago. But like I said, kick me out or don’t either way I am going to be fine. I do find it funny that so much “ink” has been spilled on this though.
Not being involved in moderating or running the site, I too find it kind of funny. But rather than all of this ink being spilled in the comments, why not just email TBTB, explain your situation, and ask to be back on the site? Just seems to me you invited the problem.
It’s not a major issue for me but I do wonder what you did to get banned in the first place. No, I’m not asking, just admitting to some curiosity.
Actually, if it hadn’t been for the public threat against him, nobody would be talking about this and nobody would be the wiser, and we’d all be carrying on happily.
Fair. But he first raised the issue (several times, although somewhat obliquely), which prompted a moderator to comment.
Agreed that this could/should have been handled differently, but that doesn’t get to the main point, which is this: what should banned members do if they want reinstated?
Can we agree that they shouldn’t sign back up under a different name without first getting permission from Ricochet?
Actually, if it hadn’t been for the curiosity-piquing troll to the in-group about “another banning,” and “hit me up at the sock,” nobody would be talking about this on this here thread, and nobody would be the wiser, and we’d all be carrying on happily.
I agree that–in the case-by-case scenario–a banned member who wants to be reinstated should contact the site and make a request. If–for whatever reason–he wants to come back as someone other than his old identity, that’s fine, but the site should be able to to make a decision about his return while knowing who is he/was. And if he hasn’t come back ‘owning’ his old self, then he really shouldn’t, out of courtesy to fellow members, particularly new ones, troll them with tales of yore. There are PMs, private groups, and other means of communicating that information without cluttering up public threads, especially those on the main feed.
That’s half the main point. The rest of it is that the site owes present and former members an explanation of its policy and rules, and a consistent application of them once they are known. It is unfair to all, particularly someone who’s trying to enforce the only set of rules he’s ever actually been told, to suddenly switch things around and move the goalposts through inaction or fiat.