Bottom line...it was your inability to behave in a civil manner that got you banned...how many times has that happened to you now?
Er... twice. This latest event on the Bob Clark forums (despite one posters accusation that I had been banned before... I hadn't) and once from Kingsnake.
The kingsnake situation was actually prior to most the ruckus over there and was caused because I made a single post detailing the similarities between Melissa Kaplan's stance surrounding the pet trade and that expressed by extremist groups. It was a one shot, one time thing done when she was still an active moderator over there and done in direct response to an attack she made on the pet industry in general (with false numbers about import deaths, refuted by CITES statistics). Which, incidentally made the attacks by BC forum members accusing me (and others) of "Peta-esque" behavior all the more amusing. This may have actually been reversed at some point too, as I believe I may have a funtional login over there again, although I switched ISPs at some point in between and never got any emails about the situation.
In both cases I felt more than justified in my position. Heck, the post which Randy decided to edit said something along the lines of "That's the funniest thing I've read in months." which certainly isn't high on the list of agressive, combatant statements, is it? My first post certainly was, because by the time I had read the venomoid thread, one of the MODERATORS was already acting in an extremely disrespectful manner to one person I consider something of a friend and several others I respected. Randy's behavior was way out of line... heck, Ian even admits that the behavior of a number of posters was an ego driven mistake in the apology post he wrote.
Look at the situation from outside for a moment... you see someone engaged in what can only be called a flame war/fight and there's a certain predisposition towards one camp among the combatants... When you see someone who had so reccently been involved and who's behavior you didn't approve of get taken down a peg or two, it's amusing.
First thing I'd like to do is perhaps get everyone to agree that Randy came off as being accusatory. It may not have been intentioned perhaps, but it's certainly the first impression given by his post when taken contextually. When I think I've caught someone plagarizing I respond in the same manner, it's normal to be a bit agressive in that situation.
In return for an admital of this, I'm willing to state outright that I put the quote and link there because they made him look foolish. He had just finished a massive ego-trip where he (and others) had abused the ideas and thoughts expressed by others, simply because they didn't know who they were. I do not however think that reminding someone of a bit of humble pie is justification for demanding the line be edited. It took a situation which would have easily gone away within a day or two and blew it into something much larger. Editing my post took this a few steps further, my words are MY choice and represent what I want to be judged on. Having someone else remove them when they aren't vulgar, abusive or in violation of a forum's rules (Under a realistic interpretation) crosses lines. It's Barringer/Stinso behavior.
When it turns out it's Tanith's page though, rather than perhaps a sheepish reply or seeing the comedy inherent in the exchange himself, his response comes across like he has to accuse her of SOMETHING so he goes after her for not posting a link. Had he responded in a different manner, I likely wouldn't have bothered putting the line in my signature.
The end result is really as follows... I think that the BC forums lost a number of people who could potentially have been valuable and active members of the community due to the ego of an individual given the power to moderate. I obviously won't be participating of course, but I doubt that Brian, Scott or B.W. will be as active and willing to add to discussions as they might otherwise have been. If nothing else, the fact that the entire episode resulted in Ian apologizing to a few of the people who were treated so poorly as new posters, then some good has come of it. If Randy (and a few others) will just do the same thing then it might even turn out to have a net positive result. Hopefully it will also shake up the attitudes over there a bit... it's easy to fall into a mentality where those who are long time posters are automatically credible... but this doesn't always make them more credible or knowledgeable than a new poster on every subject. Nor does it mean that new posters have nothing to add to the community.
