Dayton's Next Move

FWIW, I maintain my firm opinion that the no posting PMs rule is to protect the sender, and so if the sender wants to post their own PM contents (as long as it doesn't reveal by context or quote non-public PMs) they are free to. Obviously things get hairy for anyone but the initiator of a conversation until all of the previous PMs in that conversation are posted, but it's something. Malarky should be free to post his initial PM to Dayton, assuming he and not Dayton initiated the conversation.

Why are we playing these dumbass games?

The threat to remove Dayton's rep ability was made in public and raised a legitimate question about board policy. It should be answered in public.

The fact that there was a PM discussion does not preclude that in any way. You're free to take the exact same thing you said in a PM and say it in a post. Hell, you could ask Dayton for permission to post the entire conversation, and he'd probably give it.

There's no need for all this elaborate tapdancing. It was an ill-considered comment. It's okay to say so in public. The board isn't going to come crashing down around us if an administrator says "I was wrong."

This has probably already been settled, but I agree with Tafkats. The usual morons are going to make a stink, because that's all Dinner and Captain X live for, but it was wrong to open that can of worms. Best to make a statement (if you haven't already) and be done with it.

Because otherwise we have to face the futility of our existence in an uncaring cosmos as the most technologically advanced society the world has ever seen is being driven into the ditch at warp speed, with horrific repercussions that'll be felt for decades.

On a related topic, I got notified when Dayton replied to one of my posts. What's interesting about that is that it was one of his broken quote posts. Which means he went back after successfully posting and deliberately broke the quote. Obviously NBD in the Red Room, but if he's doing that in MC or other rooms, I think this is prima facia evidence it's trolling, and thus warnable.

Hmm, I may be wrong after all about how it works, because I also got notified when Faceman quoted his post, which was already broken. Never mind.

Ok, I should probably go into one of the two Help Desk threads and do a what's what post, but before I do, I want to lay the ground work so this doesn't happen again -- either the Dayton rep shenanigans or the response I used.
To which I mean, do we leave things as they are now, and not give a fuck on how people play around in the Red Room should they announce their intentions to 'leave' but continue to rep up, or, do we help people along if they announce their departures yet can't resist the siren call of rep?
(Let me know if that's not clear at all)

Why would we "help them along" if they didn't break any rule?

If a person announces they're leaving and then comes back, whether through posting or through leaving rep comments, so what? The rest of the board will probably have a field day mocking them for it, but administrative action seems wholly unnecessary.

I'd say the latter only if they ask for it to be done. The former provides more mockery opportunity for someone like Dayton who doesn't have the willpower to follow up on his claim.

On the other hand, while mocking people like Dayton for their lack of willpower is generally amusing, it does get old fast particularly when threads regularly get derailed.

This. Board functions should be revoked from people only if they abuse them or ask for them to be revoked, and neither is the case here.

Realizing that this a 'Well TK did it!!!one!' example, back during my college days, I mentioned I should take time away from the board to focus on getting ready for finals. I did not, and Mentalist, who saw my post, actually banned me to eliminate the temptation (can't recall if he also nuked my prominent duals). I was actually grateful for that.
That said, because TK did it doesn't make for a good argument at all, but it could be a point worth considering.

Is everyone in agreement with this?

They got derailed a lot less when he was only repping and not posting.

Could well be. I'll put that down as an argument to leave policy as is?

We've banned people who asked for it in the past here. In the distant past, when there was more activity, but there's precident for it.

On the topic, I agree with Tafkats. Leave well enough alone.

Two so far, three if I'm counting @Ancalagon.
Any others? I'll prep up my statement for the Help Desk thread.

Four.

Roger, Roger.

Don't think you need a big statement. The issue seems to be dead. If it comes up again, then yeah, say you goofed.

Otherwise let sleeping dogs lie IMO.

I think it would be good to make a statement so it's clear that the original threat doesn't represent board policy.

Although I guess just waiting for this thread's release date to roll around would accomplish the same thing.

Probably.
I mean, I'll make the post saying I done fucked up in the Help Desk thread, but at least here and now, it's cataloged as such for the Release thread

Here that, bois? I done fucked up.
Dayton's shenanigans annoyed the shit out of me (btw, Dayton, I do owe you some thanks for that; 'twas a lovely bm ), and my opinion on how the situation should have been resolved is not reflective of board policy, nor should it be.

Glad to hear of the natural laxative properties @Dayton3 possesses.