Indeed, in Shodan’s case it’s an example of the board’s lenience towards conservative posters, as he posted a remark with the word “lie” immediately after a moderator tried to settle things down by putting a halt to posters calling each other stupid. This sort of running up to the very edge of what is acceptable is warnable. (Years later Shodan would report a post with the term, “deliberately distorted”.)
I suspect that Bricker’s lawyerly tactics are what piss people off. On this interpretation, I take Bricker’s side. We’re here to fight ignorance and deploying his legal knowledge while making fine distinctions is legitimate and even to be encouraged in my view. I’ll also concede that the alloy of a lawyerly approach with conservatism causes him extra problems. That’s not to the good.
The idea that the mods are out to get him is something I disagree with, though I do think Bricker got tripped up by a shifting civility bar.
Incidentally, prior to his April 2015 warning I’d say the slings and arrows actually improved his posting quality, ironically. Since then, his speech may very well have been chilled, I don’t know. (Note: “Chilling effect” is a term often used in first amendment contexts and free speech discussion. Cite: Chilling effect - Wikipedia ) Usage here is a little overwraught: I’ll quote wolfpup again from the June 2015 thread and add emphasis:
That’s the actual potential downside of a higher civility bar. I don’t take conservative oppression arguments too seriously. I do think that some posters are better at some shticks than others. I’m careful with one liners, as I often fear they are insufficiently humorous (also my language can veer towards turgidity). I think Bricker’s formalism makes for strong arguments; in the rarer and rarer occasions when he mouths off he inspires pile ons. I suspect that rankles a little, but again it also makes for stronger arguments on his part, IMHO.