>>>>>>I received an email from Nick Mason saying he has apparently been banned from the UT. There were some pretty strong messages from him to Jake yesterday so maybe that was the cause. I know you seldom discuss bans publicly and will not press you to do so. I just wanted to say that Nick is generally one of the cooler heads and least offensive members here, so I hope if he is banned it is not a long one. Thank you for your consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>A ban?! A warning would have been a proper response from the moderator. But a ban is too soon and too strong.
>>>>
>>>>It's probably the only way to assure that we don't start exchanging certain expressions on casual basis. I don't think that Mike's definition of 'cooler head' looks very promising in this respect.
>>>
>>>And a warning isn't?
>>
>>In this case we could end up with '37th last warning' issue.
>
>Back when Kevin was banned, many of us expessed our dismay over and over again (to no avail). It is still the same issue: Michel owns the site, makes the rules, and can call the shots.
>
>However, as to warnings: I seem to recall that Michel stated his policy somewhere and part of that policy was the issuing of a warning for the first offense. I don't believe that was true for Kevin and I have no idea if that was true for Nicholas.
>
>IMHO, the worst is to be banned and never receive a warning (unless the offense was so great that the warning step is skipped but I didn't think so in either case - both I thought should have been allowed to make a public apology for the first offense) and have no idea why you were banned. An email to the banned party at least expressing the reason for the ban should be done.

The ban of Nick Mason is completely ridiculous. And it's complete injustice. He has all the reasons of the world to be very angry at Michel. Who does Michel think that he is? He's a company owner and a programmer and an entrepeneur. But he's neither a judge nor a policeman. Moderation here is still a real mess and very amateuristic.