I’ve just read the thread through from beginning to end, and the moderator thinking on this matter is, quite frankly, risible in its level of analysis and consistency.
I’m not sure an insta-ban was necessary, but I simply don’t understand why that post didn’t get a warning. Every argument offered in defense of the moderation here just seems like sophistry. Perhaps the most mind-boggling is tomndebb’s hilarious effort to equate racial supremacism with political ideology.
There seems to be some sort of belief that you can’t give the guy a warning for trolling, because then you’d have to ban him, or something. At least, that’s what you imply here when you say that " If the assessment is made that someone is trolling and a warning is given, I’d be hard pressed to not execute a ban. For what reason would we not ban?" This seems to strongly suggest that trolling is worthy of banning, but not a warning.
And yet there have been dozens of warnings on this board for trolling. Want some examples?
Link (because thread was closed, so no quote function)