Impressive history.

Thanks for your investment is time.

As a user, the “normal” routine is to view every post (though most recently – due to personal matters – had a special series of sessions to catch up on six weeks of unread posts at once in early December). The numerous useful opinions, facts and links is behind this and have maintained it for the five years of membership.

The opinion expressed relates to the future of using two things (1) a zero-tolerance approach (low tolerance is different) and (2) banning based upon message deletion. (In this regard, see the copyright example in a post made earlier to Tom Holmberg.)

Perhaps, there were too many words to get you to understand the main concern is for the remaining folks.

That is it relates to the 953 other people (to use your numbers: 956 registered profiles less three listed as of being your current concern) or, if you want, 103 more active current posters (again, to use your numbers 106 less three – though I thought I counted 103, difference waived).

By your post, four others have been banned in the past. All four bans appear reasonable in the circumstances.

This revelation begs the question why a new rule for the 953 (103). Whatever concept (rule or other justification) was used to ban the four in the past could be used going forward.

Seems to make the case.

Have a moderator; keep discussions free of “rude and insulting behavior”.

Thought the posting made acknowledgement that “rude and insulting behavior” can be part of “Never make a personal attack; be respectful. Stay focused on the subject, not the participant. Insulting another poster is not permitted.” (As typed by you in your post.) That’s not the concern, it is what else could be considered part of the stated rule (“Never make a . . .)

It should be noted that – at least what shows here in Europe – the item on the list only reads “Never make a personal attack; be respectful. Stay focused on the subject, not the participant.“ This does not mean in any way, shape or form, that insulting should be permitted only that the differences in the quotes shows how easily interpretation can enter into these topics.

So, the future, if understood correctly, is that deletion of a message because of a rule violation and this causes a ban.

As a result, it means “the rules” (as a matter of definition) go beyond just “rude and insulting behavior” but anything else interpreted (now or in the future) to be against “the few rules that govern our Forum” (see below for a “cut & paste” of them as on the site as see from Europe).

Again, see the copyright example in a post made earlier to Tom Holmberg.
.
Trust this helps you to understand, the concern for the remaining folks.

Now, briefly, turning to the three upon whom you wrote – since you give statistics, the wisdom of banning people who – from time to time – go astray, when they make up 37% of the postings (your numbers 23% + 8% + 6% = 37%) is another matter.

Anyway, in a rules-based approach of zero tolerance one needs clear rules, transparent administration of those rules and confidence in the exercise of fair judgment when imposing measured consequences to those violating the rules.

Thanks for your explainations. - R

PS - So, who is Rainer1 ?

From the Discussion Forum page:

“The following are the few rules that govern our Forum. Strict observance is required.
1. Never make a personal attack; be respectful. Stay focused on the subject, not the participant.
2. Do not use improper language (if you have to ask, assume it is).
3. Be tolerant of dissenting opinion. Everyone has the right to say their piece.
4. Do not advertise. Simple announcements will now be accepted. Authors may also feel free to refer to their own books, including how to obtain said books if necessary, but preferably in response to an inquiry in a thread.
5. To be able to use the forum you must set up a profile. Your profile must contain your real name and a valid e-mail address.
6. Avoid Copyright Violations: While welcome (even invited) to share information about sites offering relevant publications available for download, in your posts do not encourage, arrange, or otherwise facilitate file-sharing of copyright-protected materials from other than their legitimate sources (please see FAQ below). All works are protected by copyright until 70 years after the death of the author / creator of the object or if the author is not known, than the copyright is from 95 years from date of publication.”