Really? During World War 1 Germans living in Britain were locked up without trial, where they were deemed to pose a security risk. During World War 2 Germans and domestic fascists were detained without trial. How often on a battlefield do soldiers have to consider the "right to life" of enemy combatants? Do you think that during the D-Day landings the Allied forces had time to put the German troops on trial before it was legitimate to take action against them?

Yes.

Because we are renowned on the [iSin Bin[/i for banning people simply because they don't agree with some (allegedly) general and (presumably) pre-agreed political ethos (which all we mod and admin types share totally).



And if you look more carefully at the two parts of the post that you have quoted, you will see that they cover different things.

Depends on how big he is

But the main thing they don't do is agree with you, is any post against the AUP?

If that were the case, a lot of other posters would have gone ages ago.



Moderators on any and all forums have the authority to ban someone if they are trolling in such a way as for it to become a distraction from anything else. That doesn't mean trolling per se (which I do not, personally, take to mean being abusive per se) is barred.

I always used/use the pub tap room marker as the standard to which internet forum discussion should take place and I've banned people on southstander.com for overstepping that mark - if you wouldn't say it in public, face to face with another party who is a stranger to you, then it doesn't belong on a forum, and lets face it, the pub tap room can be the most lively of debating chambers and attract the most diverse of opinions - its a good measuring post.