[Karnagious]

@Karnagious: I rarely do this, but... lol, wut? You seem to have forgotten that this is the Team's forum. You can call us whatever you want, North Korea, the USSR, some other totalitarian state, but we don't NEED social credit to ban anyone. We can ban whenever and whoever we want for any reason we deem appropriate. This is a private forum. We try to be reasonable and follow the rules we created so that people can know when they might be crossing a line, but we can change or even ignore those rules at frankly any time we want, so long as the team generally agrees to it.

I think people sometimes forget this. Maybe it should be spelled out a bit more clearly somewhere.

@natethomas, here is what you were responding to which you quoted...

Seriously, who on your team thought that you guys still had enough social credit to be able to ban Rob without having a detailed explanation ready to post? Whose word are we supposed to be taking here?

And here is a part you didn't quote but which remains relevant...

Trust is lost. And along with that trust, you've lost the benefit of the doubt that you would deal with Rob fairly.

Yes, the forum owner CAN ban anyone they want. But that banal factoid ignores the point that there is always a COST borne by the banner when they do so.

Sometimes they will have enough social credit that people will give them the benefit of the doubt as to their reasons, and so their reputation is not negatively affected. People will presume they had valid reasons and weren't merely wielding the ban hammer to arbitrarily silence someone who might have embarrassed them.

If they don't have that credit, let's say they already spent it all, recently, on the very person they ended up banning, then the impact on their reputation will depend on the specific circumstances, i.e. whether people think it was justified.

Inherent in my question was the assumption that you lot cared about your collective reputation. An act by one reflects on you all. A fact you yourself alluded to when you said the rules are only binding on the team as long as "the team generally agrees to it".

So why did anyone think that you guys still had enough social credit to be able to ban someone without having an explanation ready to post?

My question is not disputing that the banner had the right to do what they did. My question is not even disputing whether it was justified. The question is why the banner didn't think it would come off as arbitrary? Why did they not think it would end up looking petty, vindictive, malicious, ... ?

Did they misread the situation, or did they just not care?

[Martijn]

Who says you had enough social credit to open another thread?
Closing this as all well cause there has been enough said already.

[natethomas]

To answer the question, the collective team did not care. Karnagious, you are using the wrong calculus. The team rarely, if ever, operates on the basis of whether forum users like us. You've been angry at us enough over the years that I would have thought I'd know that by now. Social credit is not a factor that determines moderating actions or posting actions.

The team is a collection of individuals with different methods of attaining the same goal: the furthering of Kodi and having fun in the process. The only calculation anyone made when the ban happened, and let me assure you, the ban was agreed upon by quite a lot of people, was whether continuing to let a seemingly unending problem drag on would benefit Kodi. Fun, obviously, had gone out the window weeks ago. Now the ban has happened, team members are free to finally deal with other things that, in their opinions, probably matter more for the overall benefit of Kodi and are undeniably more fun to deal with.

If this results in the loss of social credit, so be it. Does that somehow make the core software worse? And if it does, can you point to the lines of code that are suddenly problematic?

If you still inexplicably care enough about this subject to want to reply, feel free to PM me. I have a feeling creating a third thread on the subject will likely lead to a ban.