Trife wrote:Granted, but when the person is a repeat offender and has avoided bans on the past - one might see the reasoning in barring him from returning. I understand he's been given more than one chance here on these forums. How many does he need?
A valid point. However, throughout history people have stood up against an establishment and rules that they don't agree with. The establishment will brand them as miscreants, rebels, or "offenders", to use your vernacular.
In this particular case, he-who-shall-not-be-named was rebelling against a set of rules he felt were oppressive and unfair. Granted, while the rules were in place, he was subject to being banned for breaking them, even if the rules were unjust. His approach to trying to fix the rules was to simply ignore them and it landed him in jail. Others might have chosen to change the laws through other, less overt means. It's just his style.
Once the rules were dissolved, however, the reasons for the ban are summarily invalidated at the same time. That said, if he is unable to comply with the new rules, a ban may be (is?) warranted again. In the interim, the ban needs to be lifted and he be allowed the same opportunity as everyone else to comply with the current rules.
Make sense?