is permanently banning members really necessary?

[kevin baggott]

Banning Brawley is like the Nelson Riddle Band kicking out Frank.

[ahalpert]

banning brawley is like the nelson riddle band kicking out frank.

-whoosh-
.........

[Alex H.]

but isn't it possible that political rants are a lower category of offense than verbal abuse?

In theory. As David said, what transpires outside of public view leaves a crucial part of the story untold, and it’s going to remain that way because we’re not going to out any member for what happens in the background, even if it’s on the level of what David posted above. But permanent bans are not decisions made lightly.

[Paul F]

yikes David, that's so horrible. thank you for absorbing abuse on our behalf.

but isn't it possible that political rants are a lower category of offense than verbal abuse?

Another horrible thing moderators have to put up with is constant second-guessing their moderation.

[ahalpert]

Another horrible thing moderators have to put up with is constant second-guessing their moderation.

I suppose you're right . I was just very surprised that JB got the boot and it's hard for me to imagine him spewing such vitriol as David posted earlier. Even when he took strong objections or positions, it was usually with moderate language. Perhaps he deserved the ban, but the forum is worse off for it

[Run&Gun]

For the sake of this discussion, let’s say that something really egregious may have happened during a non-public exchange between JB and the mods that did lead to them feeling his ban was necessary. Was it necessary to delete his posts and threads that were chock full of great information and stories from a high-level working DP who works on mainstream national and internationally distributed work? Or is this a consequence/limitation of the bulletin board system and the way it operates and when a user is banned(deleted), then all of their content is automatically purged by the system, as well? Because if this was a conscious decision made by the mods here on DVX to delete all of his previous (non-offending posts) contributions, then the community was just punished for no reason and a literal treasure trove of information was just lost. This could be filed under “Throwing the baby out with the bath water”.

If there is no appeal for allowing JB back(again my vote is to reinstate, based on the information that I currently have), then I would ask that his (non-offending) posts and threads be restored so that the information is available to the community. Which is what this forum is for, after all.

[Phil Rhodes]

I'd been posting here a little more frequently of late, but this sort of shenanigans puts me off.

[David Saraceno]

but isn't it possible that political rants are a lower category of offense than verbal abuse?

Your comments understandably assumes something that is mistaken. And that's my and other moderators point. Much more factors into a decision to ban than what appears to the reason.

[David Saraceno]

For the sake of this discussion, let’s say that something really egregious may have happened during a non-public exchange between JB and the mods that did lead to them feeling his ban was necessary. Was it necessary to delete his posts and threads that were chock full of great information and stories from a high-level working DP who works on mainstream national and internationally distributed work?

Again, this is a mistaken assumption.

[CharlesPapert]

That's it! I'm OUTTA HERE!

Kidding. I can't quit you guys.

Fortunately, the sassiest I get online is relatively mild--then again, who knows if I have come close to the swinging axe of mods and never knew it? The diversity convo was interesting, I read a lot of it and have thoughts on the matter. But I decided not to get into it, mostly because...time and place.