After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jingram058

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

To fulfill their obligation in the eyes of the law.

Some people will obviously still be wary of recidivism. That can't be blamed.

I remember a recorded jailhouse phone call with one fellow most of us are familiar with. Once his time was served, he stated that he would come back bigger and stronger than ever. While that may be doubtful, would anyone wish to give such a person that opportunity within the confines of this forum? I know how I feel about it.

[SAllen2556]

I don't think you have to worry. Anyone in this hobby who's actually dumb enough to have been convicted probably can't read anyway.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I don't think you have to worry. Anyone in this hobby who's actually dumb enough to have been convicted probably can't read anyway.

You haven't been around the hobby very long then. I think smart, good people can make mistakes and atone for them. As far as them being on the forum, I want to see what others think. All comments and votes are welcomed.

and a card....of a black sox
Buck was never reintstated.....
.

[Casey2296]

One of the things I enjoy most about this forum is the trust that is built between members here, I find the vast majority of folks here tend to have a strong moral character and integrity, characteristics that are built over time and can't be switched on and off like a lightbulb.

A large part of that is due to your vigilant moderation Leon, thank you for that.

There's a lot to be said for 2nd chances, we've probably all needed one at some point in our life, and I do believe as long as you're honest and remorseful there is a way to build back trust.
The answer is certainly not black and white but I trust your judgement. I just wouldn't want the hard earned trust we have with each other to be eroded.

I would ask this;

What if a current member here was a victim of the convicted fraudster? Would part of his inclusion be predicated on some form of restitution for that member?

[brunswickreeves]

It depends on the scope of the incident by the bad actor, so suggest is taken up on a case by case basis. Maybe via a small governance or review committee. But generally say no, yet hold: 'Once is an outlier, twice is a trend.'