Originally Posted by SPN Lifer

I am relieved to learn that the new "banned" label includes the moderator-imposed 7- and 30-day suspensions. So my favorite reactionary who may have a bit of a temper problem might not be gone forever.

The reason I say this is that with the increased power of moderators comes increased responsibility. One of my favorite moderators, and I say this with utmost admiration and not an iota of sarcasm, seems also occasionally prone to flashes of temper -- we are all human, are we not? -- albeit not to the level, perhaps, that (temporarily?) cost the prickly Christian from Arizona his posting privileges.

Yet while moderators now have new disciplinary tools, the participation of some of them in concerted "Reputation" attacks shows that such power is not always used benignly. Indeed, it would appear that the "banned" member was the subject of an organized baiting campaign, not that the presumed "victim" is always the model of temperate response.

So what I am saying is that if there is any way to give moderators solely the ability to ban within a given forum, it should be implemented.

If not, perhaps we need a little more due process, given the ability of those who participate in the fray to impose sanctions against their very opponents.

It is a maxim of jurisprudence, "No man should be a judge in his own case." Of course our host can do whatever he wishes; he is not the Government. Yet the principle has natural law antecedents.