Punki, you and I disagree about the merits of posting the names of offenders. I'm not suggesting that FT protect the guilty out of some compassion for the guilty. I do believe, as I think you do, that FT should describe the offense in enough detail for all members to know exactly why the conduct is "over the line." I didn't fill in a particular example above, but here are three examples of what I have in mind: "A member's posting privileges were suspended for 1 week because the member [posted the same material in 8 fora and did not remove the duplicate posts after being warned] [called another member a "_________" in violation of the TOS] [used offensive racial/ethnic terms to describe a third person]" I think these would give any reasonable reader a clear idea of what isn't allowed, and for what offense the suspension was issued.

In the link you included, I believe the names of the FTers were themselves the reason for terminating their privileges. IIRC, FT decided that the persons who opened those accounts devised those names specifically to insult (or more charitably, to express a negative opinion about) a prolific Australian FTer -- the names themselves were the offense.