>>>Although the interesting element here at UT a good portion of the call for banning is caused in some ways by MVP (so you mentionned) , and your site seems to attract a good bunch of them, more than others anyways. Corrolation between MVPs and banning maybe.
>>
>>This is the sad part. Is it because some benefit from their high profile in regards to that and try to go a little further to the borderline of the Terms & Conditions of this site and, sometimes, go over it. It proves one thing however. No matter the status of one person, we are all human beings and the rules of a site, such as this one, applies to all.
>
>I go way overboard in the opposite direction ... I'm extremely careful to NOT step on other people's toes or to use harsh words. I am respectful of my MVP status and what it represents. You won't ever see me pushing that T&C envelope; nor, I suspect, will most other MVPs.
>
>It's unfortunate that a correlation between being an MVP and deserving to be banned has even been mentioned here (see, I even tippy-toe around that ... you don't want to hear what I actually think about that ridiculous supposition).

What about a correlation between being an MVP and actually getting banned?

A couple of definitions:

MVP Ratio: # of MVPs who have been banned / # of MVPs active on this site

Average Joe Ratio: # of average joes who have been banned / # of average joes active on this site

How do you think MVP Ratio compares to Average Joe Ratio?