Justin was in the right for banning the member, and he was not alone with his desire to do so. Violent Meme was a troll that was causing problems. He was a new member and continuously broke the forum guidelines for appropriate behavior. As a moderator I get sick of dealing with trolls, and the faster we get rid of them, the better off the forum will be as a whole. The community will be better off without Violent Meme floating around attracting flies to his sh!t.

Having moderated a few forums myself I think it's imperative that those who spend their time and money administering it are supported by those who appreciate their boards. I ran a forum for a company and occasionally banned people who broke our terms or were rudely critical of our staff - and every time I had to do so it was a hard decision and I recieved similar "abuse of authority" arguments from some members of the community.

As this is Justin's house (EDIT - I see he doesn't agree, but it's how I tend to view it nevertheless) I think he does have the right to suggest people to leave, if I came over to your house and spoke in a way that offended you and yours would you be happy to remain my host - or would you abuse your authority and ask me to go home?

Justin's rules really, and whilst he hits the target more often than he misses I think this is a pretty sensibly adjudicated forum.

Not that I think you shouldn't constructively criticise - but when I was in Justin's position I theorised that if the obnoxious thick-skins were given a free run of the place they would soon be the only ones left, and the fact that other posters acted up in the face of bannings resulted more from lack of empathy with me, rather than empathy for the trolls.

But that is not the issue. The issue is not whether Justin had the right to ban the member, but whether he was right to do so. I suppose it is easy to confuse having a right to do X, and being right to do X, because they look and sound alike. But they are very different issues. A person may have the right to do something (the authority, that is) and still, it may be wrong for him to exercise that right, that authority. District Attorneys, for instance, often have the authority to arrest or to prosecute someone, but choose not to do so because the special circumstances of the case would make it wrong to do so. A teacher may have the authority to grade very harshly, but not do it because it would be wrong to do so. Having authority is one thing, judging when and how to exercise that authority is quite a different thing.

The issue is not whether Justin had the right to ban the member, but whether he was right to do so.

But it is my experience that actions removing a Member are not taken lightly nor are they made arbitrarily; usually the removal is made only after an attempt is made to bring the infraction (s) to the Member's attention and provide him an opportunity to remedy his own actions, and if that fails, only after discussion and consensus by staff members.

I suppose that certain rights are actually limited in a complex manner. Like a policeman has the right to drag people to the police-station, but will quickly lose it if he does so wrongly. So I suppose that besides a difference between having a right and being right, there is also a difference between having a limited right and one you can exercise freely

Oh, and despite the fact that his sense of fairness will massacre him later, this is Justin's forum, so he can do whatever he wants here

Without being privy to our staff-level policies, our discussions about other parallel situations, our scrutiny of that member's entire opus of posts, and our general charge to maintain the quality and mission of this community, I respectfully submit that you are not in the position to judge this decision with all the facts and considerations at hand.

Secondly, in a mere thirty posts this member espoused 1) violence against children, 2) racism, 3) antisemitism, 4) misogyny, 5) vulgarity, and 6) banal and unfettered arrogance. That's quite an accomplishment on his part -- at least to get all that in without getting banned earlier.

I am not in a position to judge this decision, and I did not judge this decision. I simply pointed out that it does not follow from the fact that Justin has the right to ban the member, that he was right to ban the member. I did say that I thought that Justin was wrong to ban the member on the ground that the member advocated violence, since it is untrue that the member advocated violence. But this is not about whether Justin was right to ban the member, nor whether he had the right to ban the member. It is about the argument that since he had the right to ban the member, he was right to ban the member.

Oh geez, why are we arguing the semantics of it. I banned the member and admit to being wrong in the way it was done... but it's done and it's just one less thing I have to deal with at the moment.