> Allow me to explain it this way. Someone is put into
> prison for imbezzlement. They go out and apply for a
> job as say a bank teller. Would you hire that person
> or would you be wary and hire someone else instead?
> Look at it from that light.
>
> .... (snipped a bit for brevity)
>
> Does this make sense?
To some degree, this policy does make sense, but I do not believe that it
does in this case.
In the case of an embezzler, the criminal was for a time incarcerated in a
jail and completely removed from society (much like a suspension when
comparing it to our disciplinary actions). His freedom gives him back many
of his rights and privileges, but it is not surprising that they be phased
back over a bit of time, and that banks might not trust him immediately.
In this case though the punishment was *only* the loss of the privilege of
being an officer. To bar him from applying is not easing him back into his
rights, but is instead extending the punishment that has already been
reviewed and reduced. It is more akin to a prison warden not releasing a
prisoner because he disagrees with the parole hearing, if you wish to use
the embezzlement analogy.
Furthermore, Jason was not punished for cheating, favoritism, nepotism, bad
rules calls, abusing his authority, failing to report, or other other
issues so strongly tied to the fitness of a Storyteller. He was
disciplined for the words he chose to use and for the words that his
assistant chose to use. If he has not reformed, then the worst that we
have to fear are harsh words. This hardly seems reason to me to extend a
punishment that has been reduced.
That being said, I don't propose that we all forget about the events or the
punishment, for we can't. Should his application be accepted, I'm certain
that he has lost the support of some of the domain. That doesn't mean that
he shouldn't be allowed to run though.
Charlie Collins
us2002023850