>>>Among the reasons given I did not see the one I would suspect to be the most prominent - or would be if it were my site (not applied particularly to Kevin but in general).
>>>
>>>The signal to noise ratio.
>>
>>On a chatter forum? Tbat doesn't seem like enough reason to toss someone out on their keister. (sp?) The other thing that bothers me is that, according to posts by others here, Kevin is adamant that he wasn't told why he was tossed.
>
>And my contention is that Michel tossed him because to Michel, for one reason or another, his presence seemed more trouble than it was worth. And for Michel getting into a debate with Kevin about it - by stating reasons and then his rebuttal through proxies etc - would just continues the sturm und drang.
>
>I'm not saying Michel was "justified", whatever that means in this context, just that if I had to guess at how the decision was made that is it. Somebody is probably hacking in or using proxy accounts or harassing Michel or whatever and Michel has suspicions he can't prove and personal agendas that he doesn't choose to share so he just locks somebody out. I wasn't kidding about the "to encourage the others" Voltaire quote. Short of putting a head on a pike on the login page, I think the action speaks for itself.
>
>He just wants to minimize the amount of time he has to spend dealing with the drama and is making what he thinks is his best decision for advertising and PUTMs.
>
>Obviously it didn't work, but I'm not sure any other path - aside from status quo, which evidently was untenable for him - would have worked either.
>
>I also don't think there is any chance expressions of indignation - unless it involves revenue via PUTMs - is going to change that decision. And I think it's a pretty good bet Michel knows more about how all that shakes out than I do.
>
>But that's just my guess. I miss Kevin's contributions in technical areas. If it were my call I'd never have banned him (or anyone else). It's not my call. Life goes on.
>
>Were I the site owner, I would also be less sympathetic to any non-paying member (a group that includes me) who has complaints, grievances, demands etc. I think it has always been clear that this is a business.
>
>I certainly like and respect Rod as much as anyone I know in this arena of life, but I don't have the same sense of indignation on this one he apparently does. Maybe I just don't think Kevin has lost that much and I'm frankly surprised he spent as much time as he apparently did in pointless wrangling over stuff that was, to many people, religious rather than technical <s>. (I never really thought he went overboard on speaking to the virtues of .NET, but perhaps my zeal for ideological purity is underdeveloped <s>)

More good points, most of which I agree with. To me the nut of it is that with KG evicted for reason(s) that are not apparent to anyone, we are left to think anyone else might be banned equally capriciously. People will tolerate harsh sanctions if they think it was fair. If they think it was capricious, that's another story. I'm not sure your Voltaire reference applies, at least not in a good way. People certainly have taken notice that a prominent member was banned and doesn't know why.

At this point we should probably all accept that Michel isn't going to give us a reason. That doesn't mean it shouldn't leave a sour taste in our mouths.