I don't know how it works on other forums, but at Crossroads, banning someone is a difficult and highly emotional decision. Even for a poster who believes the decision was just, there is probably a twinge of "eek! it could happen to me! better keep quiet.." So I want to make a few definite statements that may be useful to those who disagree with my decision. Please feel free to print this out, copy it to a safe cyber-location, and quote it back to me [I will not edit this, even for typos, but I realize you only have my word for that.]
Disagreeing with my decision to ban David Byron is absolutely acceptable.
Telling me you disagree with my decision is also absolutely acceptable, even if you don't state your reasons.
Disagreeing with me and giving your reasons for doing so is not only acceptable, it's welcome. If I messed up, I want to know.
Calling me names is not acceptable.
Illustrative examples may be useful, so here are a few. "You stupid jerk!" is name-calling. [Duh.] "Banning someone just because they use words you don't like is the kind of thing I'd expect from a dictator like you" is also name-calling - it's the same thing as "You're a dictator!" "This banning was wrong, because David Byron was posting within the rules on other threads, even by your standards, and he didn't call you any names in his reply" is completely acceptable; it doesn't attack me personally, and it gives specific reasons for the disagreement. I happen to disagree [Duh, again - if I agreed, I wouldn't have banned him] but it gives reasons for the disagreement, with enough detail to make those reasons debatable.
Under these unusual circumstances, I don't mind being called a few names; however, that would probably elicit equally inappropriate responses, and the thread would degenerate into a series of rude remarks. So, I'll be blind to any language that doesn't divert the thread from the topic, but strict about anything that does divert it.
I would also like to make it clear that I did not ban David Byron because he insulted me. Nor did I ban him because he ignored the rules [hey, we all do that once in a while]. I banned him because 1) he repeatedly and intentionally violated the rules, and 2) he intentionally violated the instructions of an Official Administrative Warning. Not "my" instructions - the instructions of An Administrator, which happened to be me.
I would like to apologize to any of the David Byron numerical variations who are not the same person as the non-numerical David Byron. I realize that I have banned you without any fault on your part [other than an unfortunate choice of sceen name]. But you made the decision to adopt a screen name that affiliated you with someone who was treading on thin ice from the start, and you have the option of re-registering under a different screen name that reflects your own unique personality. Pick a new name, and abide by the rules of this forum, and you are welcome here. I do state, as a fact that should be obvious, that anyone who registers after the timestamp of the post that banned David Byron will be subject to a suspicion that it is an alias for the person who posted as David Byron; however, if you are courteous to other posters, that suspicion will soon disappear. If you are a legitimate new poster, your behavior will erase any stigma.
For those who wonder whether I had been plotting to ban David Byron all along, I can tell you that I read and posted on other threads this evening. You can read what I posted, notice the time stamps, and form your own conclusions.
I'm human enough to enjoy support for my decisions, but I do *not* want to hear any trashing of David Byron on this thread. For one thing, the guy isn't here to defend himself. For another thing, rehashing a grievance just makes it last longer. So this is a thread for *dis*agreeing with the ban, not for rejoicing. I'm not.
And now I'm going to bed. This whole thing has worn me out.