>>>>>I looked over the rules and if I wanted to find some interpretation to ban Kevin if I so wished I surely could. The rules acknowledge that some rules are based on interpretation (one man's troll is another's hero - an example *not* connected to Kevin in my eyes - although I disliked the Cato approach). What is puzzling is that (while reserving the right to ban in "necessary" cases without personal warning before, but citing unavailability as example) the usual procedure is to clearly warn before any action is taken. This does not fit with the things posted by Bonnie and John as received personal communication by Kevin.
>>>>
>>>>It depends on the severity of the situation. Each situation is different. So, just to provide you some definition on how notices are sent or not, here is the explanation.
>>>
>>>Well, this is quite puzzling then. Kevin was never notified before you banned him. None of us can see anything that he's posted that would qualify as "severe".
>>
>>Quite a puzzle, isn't it? MF just talked about the severity of the issue not requiring a warning, and I think there might have been some other people who have done worse and they're gone too Huh? They're still here? Oh.
>
>Jay, Again, I'm not going to speculate what Kevin did, but MF indicates he was involved in something we do not have any knowledge about. According to Michel he is not being banned by his public participation up here.
>
>So we can nag and complain all we want, but michel won't tell us why he was banned and to critize michel because he cannot or will not tell is not justified IMO.

Thanks for that.