Why is a reversed suspension being used as a reason for a permanent banning?

[Max_S]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’m genuinely curious about his final offense; yeah, there’s a rule against saying or implying that one’s fellow posters achieve sexual gratification, or soil themselves in glee/distress — but, AFAICT, the whole point of that is that it’s within the rules to say that various posters achieve non-sexual gratification (regardless of whether the posters are said to do so upon reports of some non-poster doing something sexual or non-sexual).

Did he actually cross that line?

My opinion, I am not mod.

Implying that members of the board enjoy the thought of a public figure being raped, in a P&E topic very far removed from sexual assault, is or should be a warnable offense. I believe it violates this rule,

@Jonathan_Chance

Sexualizing posters and their arguments. Do not say or imply that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress due to recent news reports, political iconography, contemplation of ideological positions, etc.

on the basis that accusing someone of enjoying the thought of someone being raped is tantamount to accusing him or her of achieving sexual gratification. If you read “achieving sexual gratification” narrowly I also believe UltraVires violated the general prohibition of sexualizing posters and arguments by associating his ideological opponents with enjoyment of rape. At the very least his post violates the spirit of the rule.

If action is not warranted a rule change is in order, as this kind of side remark is wholly inappropriate for P&E.

~Max