Originally Posted by Randy Petersen
As for politics - i think the record of posts that lead to that ban started with attorney28 posts on Oct. 14
(...)As for your statement about disrupting the elections. I just looked. It seems that wharvey first consulted with one of the future candidates about some of their posts being disruptive back on Oct. 14 and again on Oct. 18. Correct me if I am wrong, but i think the elections did not start until Oct. 21. A ban typically only comes into play when after several warnings, the member simply does not consider it important enough to adapt posting behavior. Here's another very, very important fact Mr. Graham - this member did not submit his application as a candidate until Oct. 20, so it is highly unlikely that this moderator could have known almost a week in advance that the member was going to run as a candidate for the TalkBoard and started pre-emptive actions to "deprive" him of a victory.
Otto, these are the facts. I'll let your comments speak for yourself.
Randy, you have always said that you are opposed to allowing that a member's reputation gets publicly executed, and therefore, you have usually been reluctant to discuss reasons for bans or what happened that led to a ban publicly.
May I say that this post could be understood by some as a deviation from that position? I would actually not be opposed to talking about it, but I want to be sure that you are fine with that.
My point of view would be that these are some (correct) facts, but surely not all facts.
I will not attempt to present more facts from my point of view, though, as Gary is right that we should look ahead and not back, and I am not looking for confrontation, but I would like to help constructively.
And Spiff is right, too...so I will try to get back on topic.
After some thinking about it, it seems to me that a religious travellers forum could be a good idea - worth a try - as I said, if it does not get traffic/support by the members, one can still close it. Just my personal opinion
.