OK – where to start?

First thing – I would like to apologize for not having been able to to join this thread earlier. Ideally, I should have been – but there you are.
Some thoughts – in a somewhat random order:
There seems to be little disagreement that the post that triggered Shibumi’s Backroom ban was of very poor taste and justified a formal reaction.
The post was a rather obvious and rather blunt attempt to provoke in a thread that was explicitly made with the purpose to have a respectful exchange.
A ban might be seen as a harsh reaction – but the ban from a part of the forum is a next step that should not be too surprising when other steps are ignored.
The tone in Banquo’s PM reply might appear “flippant” and – standing on its own – perhaps condescending; however it is not standing on its own – it is the reaction to the somewhat baffling question what might have been wrong with the post in question – after a track record of similar forum rule violations.
Yes – patrons deserve that staff takes the time to clarify issues – at the same time voluntary staff should also not be expected to play along indefinitely with patrons that are perfectly aware of what the issue was and simply would like to extend the “fun” via PM (in the context I found the e-***** remark somewhat ironic).

About the issue of inequality – I acknowledge that this issue exists to a certain extent. I think it would be silly to claim otherwise. We have quite a number of moderators, each of them being given a certain room for interpretation of the forum rules – we do not hand out a thick manual and we do not conduct 4-week boot camps for new moderators. The role of the moderators is to make sure that a friendly atmosphere is maintained in the part of the board for which they are responsible.
The nature of a subforum as well as the individual moderator play a role in how the rules are applied – and there are certainly differences between e.g. the Backroom, the Frontroom and the Arena.
We try to be consistent in how rules are applied and there are frequent discussions and requests for second (or more) opinions among staff to make sure that we are aligned – but there will be inconsistencies – we are neither clones nor saints.
While I acknowledge inconsistencies, I do however not agree that we systematically separate between the “in”-crowd and the rest. As has been mentioned before – often we react to reported posts while other posts that also violate forum rules seems to slip through the cracks.
It is certainly easy to pull examples of “senior member” or “moderator” posts that were not in line with forum rules and went “unpunished” – however, it will be as easy to find such posts of patrons that are not part of the perceived “in”-crowd.

It has been observed that we should not dismiss valid arguments, just because they come from patrons that might not be “liked” by staff. This is a fair point. It should be understandable however that people generally tend to get somewhat defensive when they are lectured about good manners by people who consider it to be perfectly fine and mainstream to be insulting and dismissive in their own posts on a regular basis.
Remarking that the Watchtower is no place to pelt people who voice different opinions with rotten fruit and tell them “don't let the door hit your ass on the way out” is a valid point – it leaves a bitter taste of dishonesty when it comes from a patron whose (IIRC) very first post on this board and in a Watchtower thread was “If total war center is what floats your boat - the door is wide open”.

Please excuse the longwinded post – if you don’t want to read it perhaps the following quote from the sig of an absent staff member summarizes best what we should all keep in mind to make sure that this is a friendly place to be at:

Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.