I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If
people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message,
that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in
other ways is inappropriate and abuse of the feature.
I have to say I'm surprised at the judgmental nature of the responses to J's question. When did we stop trying to help each other and instead became unappointed judges of what people do?? Why is it wrong for a group owner to want to go back and follow the trail to see why someone got banned? If I had a moderator or co-owner ban someone, it only seems fair to the person being banned for me to review the situation to fully understand why that person was banned. If it takes a hack to see some of the finer details, so be it. Looking at *all* the details seems like the prudent thing to do to give a fair review of the case.
This group and GMF have been using hacks and workarounds when obstacles have been encountered for years. Eventually those obstacles get remedied, but owners have a job to do before the fix gets made.
If something is allowed in one view and not another, it seems that it was likely a simple omission when it was set up. When it comes to viewing past events of a group, why should an owner be hamstrung from doing the best job they can? Why would an owner not be allowed to know all the facts to review a decision? I've found that Mark is very cautious when he sets up these things regarding what is allowed and it's effects. And heaven knows there are enough little things that are still waiting to be fixed on groups.io.
I have other comments, but for now I'll leave it at that. We must occasionally be reminded that groups are not a democracy. They are at best a benevolent dictatorship, and for good reason. Owners have a great burden of being as fair as they can to their members and balancing that against the greater good of their group, lest they be called to explain someone's disgruntled complaint to the Management of groups.io.