Can you say the name of this site, so I can be sure to avoid it?


>Sorry, can't help you in your cause here. The banning on the "other site", is most likely more radical than UT. No warning, no e-mail, nothing...just a message on the site that says something like "There is a problem with your account...please contact management". But contacting management, if the banning was warranted, is futile, there will be no reply, and the user has to put a "set step on" and backtrack to find out "where did I go wrong".
>
>>Is an email sent to them at the time of banning notifying them specifically why they are banned (perhaps referencing a message) or is it just a case of notifying them that 'you failed to obey the rules?' I'm curious what the standard practice is.
>>
>>
>>>I get your point, and I think you get mine. I help manage a similar site once in a while, and I think everyone that has been banned from that site has a pretty good idea why, if they think back at their actions.
>>>
>>>>No, (here I go nit-picking :o) because the statement was I see nothing wrong. The writer is not commenting on things he/she doesn't see or know about and is not speculating at all. The writer is only commenting on what he/she has observed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Actually 'This banning is unjustified' is speculation, but "I see nothing wrong that Kevin has done in the recent past that would warrant a ban" is not speculation but an observation based on personal knowledge by reading his messages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then let us also turn this topic around and tell everyone that are making claims like "This banning is unjustified!" and "I see nothing wrong that Kevin has done in the recent past that would warrant a ban". These are also speculations, as you point out we do not know what motivated Michel to ban Kevin.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not to "nitpick" but if Kevin did something behind the scenes, that is no visible to members, but rather between Kevin and the administration, then it would be speculation.