A suggestion

Depending on how one chooses to rule a message board will determine if this advice is followed or rejected.

When a poster is warned by a moderator here, he is given a stern summons. There is no arena for redress or refutation. It is a simple, straight forward process: the judge finds you guilty. Case closed.

Without question, this is the most efficient, easiest, and decisive manner in which to run any organization. It's the reason dictators get things done in a more expedient manner than philosopher kings and democratic leaders. In the short term, such a system will yield the best and most productive results. However, I might argue that long term results will not be as positive. A tyrant's hammer becomes a weapon used against him.

As a true American who believes in the ideals of democracy, I think the long term sustenance of any body of individuals depends on a system of checks and balances whereby no one individual or interest group, or mob of like-minded allies, controls and wields totalitarian power.

One way this American ideal could be manifest on this board is by allowing a person who is accused of a violation of terms to address the charges pressed against her via a personal reply to the prosecutor. This is especially needed when the moderator who lays charge against the poster does not sign his name in the message.

I realize that this message board is not a democracy. I also am not raising this issue because I believe I am innocent of any recent accusation levied against me. I simply raise the issue because I think allowing a personal response from the user, possibly to apologize or to explain his side of the story, might stem some of the animosity which may arise from the user's felt oppression, whether that feeling is merited or not. Message boards were built on mutual dialogue. Peace is built on mutual dialogue.