Well, this is directed to Steve mostly, but I want it to be understood also as a general
position.
To be one of a group of Moderators, is not the same thing as being elected officials in
some sort of representative government. This is not a democracy.
I stated my position previously about one user, but this should not be construed as a
vote one way or another on an issue.
If any Moderator in the future sees grounds for banning any member on this site, then I
will not gainsay that decision. If a decision is made, then I will support the
Moderator that has decided his action in merit. Perhaps the problem in this case is
that too many opinions were asked beforehand.
I would also suggest to Dave, if it is possible, that there is a forum provided
accessible only to members having Moderator access. A place in which to discuss
amongst ourselves. I find it to be non-productive the insertion of regular members
in this sort of discussion. If we have the need to come up with collective positions,
then the proceedings amongst ourselves should not be within the vigilant purview
of non-moderators. Again, I repeat, this site is not, nor should it be considered to
be a democracy.
Again, to Steve, as far as I can ascertain you have been an exemplary Moderator. If you give
me a fait accompli, I will back your prerogative to the hilt.
As Moderators, it is not our function to judge the decisions made by single
Moderators, that is the function of only one person, Dave.