>>>>I must be forgetting the entire past today. I don't remember you denying it, only that you felt justified in doing it.
>>>
>>>The original ban was unjust. I'm not talking about the consequnces of it.
>>
>>
>>Unjust in you eyes, but entirely just in the eyes of the moderators and most of the others users of that forum that complained. You don't have a RIGHT to exist in a forum you have the privelege to use it as the owners see fit. Its like a right to work state, they don't need a reason to let you go, they can fire you at will. Same thing. Grow up and learn that the world doesn't resolve around you or your wants.
>
>Right, but the point is - if that's the case, then the decision to ban Kevin is also just in the eyes of the moderators. We don't know how many UT users complained.
>
>In other words, it's the same thing and if we apply the rule to the moderators of foxite, we need to apply the same rule to Kevin's case as well.
>
>Using exactly your words, Kevin didn't have a RIGHT to exist in a forum, he had a privilege that was taken out.
>
>Exactly the same thing and should be treated fairly (the same) in both cases.

Exactly.

However, there is a difference between the moderators right to ban a member and the other users' right to complain. While the moderator of both sites can ban whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose, the members of both sites can complain about it. It may have no effect whatsoever though other than to anger the moderator/owner. The moderator/owner could in fact, in he or she chose, ban members who complain. That is the perogative of the owner/moderator.

Just as members here complain about Kevin's banning, if you, or any other valuable contributor, were banned from this site members would be complaining non-stop as well. I assume the same is true of the other site, but I don't know because I don't visit that other site often. Of course, all of the members complaining about Kevin's banning has not brought Kevin back. The moderator or owner of the site still has the authority to allow him back or enforce the ban at his/her will.

It is up to the owner/moderator of any forum to determine which has greater value: to maintain the ban of the individual or to lift it. It is not a question of what is 'fair' or 'unfair.'

Members can only post in accordance with the rules and guidelines of each site and if they do not abide by those rules, they can be banned. They can be banned for any reason not listed as well as that is the right of the owner of the site (and any moderator if the owner gives a moderator the perogative to do so).

I'm not sure that helps your understanding, but I hope so. It doesn't make either banning 'fair.' But then, right or wrong, 'fairness' has nothing to do with it.