DrDeth makes a few points I generally agree with.
He claims he was suspended out of the blue. If it were me, I would prefer a note, warning, or PM before being suspended. Apparently the suspension was only 24 hours so the mods would have time to discuss the appropriate action. That’s not too bad, but I would definitely want a heads up (such as this topic, or a PM to the same effect) before being suspended for, say, a week or more. If it is reasonable to do a temporary topic- or category- ban instead of suspending me from the entire message board, that would be preferable.
If it were me I would prefer a mod note. If disagreements run deep you can’t flesh out the positions without getting nitty gritty. But going into the weeds makes it difficult to see the big picture, and focus will inevitably shift from the main topic to some tangent. Traditionally speaking, it’s the moderator’s job to cut off debators that get sidetracked - that way neither participant is seen as backing down. In traditional settings it is the host/moderator’s job as a neutral party to take the heat for stopping a perfectly good/interesting sub-debate, or removing it to another room. If you put the onus on the individual participant, that can have a chilling effect as deep-seated disagreements naturally invite further arguments.
Personally I don’t think a warning or suspension for hijacking is justified unless moderators are confident the member derails topics intentionally (trolling) or with reckless disregard for the conversation (which implies disrespect for the conversation, i.e. threadshitting).
That being said I see room for improvement on DrDeth’s part,
I think it is generally a jerk move to imply k9bfriender did not read the original post. One might as well allow accusations of threadshitting if this kind of post is acceptable. In my opinion this rude question lowered the quality of the discussion ever so slightly.
Here DrDeth insinuates that Czarcasm “wants to send gun owners to prison” and does not “actually care about the children who are dying”. This does not appear to be a rhetorical question, therefore I believe it is a jerk move that diminishes the quality of the discussion.
Same as above, in response to an unknown poster (the post being replied to seems to have been dissasociated when the topic was split in two). Directly insinuating lack of good faith or reasonable concern for children is, in my opinion, a jerk move.
Even if character attacks are a valid rhetorical strategy, they are unnecessary and unbecoming of a civil debate.
~Max