Banning SubJeff is reasonable.

[Jeshibu]

Seniority should not mean preferential treatment.

Mind, nbohr would not be missed by anyone either.

[Brethren]

Not to mention that Al indicated what got him banned was not what he said on the forums, but likely what was said in PMs or emails where he attempted to plead his case.

Since no one besides Al knows what exactly was said there, there's no way anyone can argue that his banning is "ridiculous" or "unreasonable."

But I will say that yes, longtime members here should get a bit more of the benefit of the doubt. But that's also not some type of bulletproof vest that gives you unlimited leniency either.

[Al_B]

I was a little bit terse in the previous thread but I do feel strongly that specific bans is not something that benefits from public debate - decisions in general are not simply based on what is seen in public posts. Unless there's been something completely extreme (pornography or the audacity to try to sell shoes - I must stress that neither of which applies here) then I can't think of any severe ban in recent memory that's been on one instance alone. Long-term members do in general get more leeway, simply because it's easier to see if a post is out of character (perhaps they've had a bad day) or deliberately flippant which may be misinterpreted if someone completely fresh to the forum posted it.

Moderation is never easy and never satisfies everyone - the team tries their best to get the balance right and make sure that the forums are a place where people enjoy visiting without stamping down on opinions that may simply be unpopular. I'm going to close this thread for reasons said at the start of this post, but hope that even without speaking about this particular instance that it explains some of the difficulties.