[thulle]

> Several posts have been hidden/deleted because they also contained inflammatory speech. Several community members have reported their discomfort with Srid. In that context, his Discourse profile was seen as yet another provocation.

Not sure you can link to them then?

Considering the contents of the page seem to support their conclusion that the image was just another way to intentionally provoke others in the community I guess they figured the banned member had no intention of following the intention of the warning, but skirting it as close as possible. And now when that failed and they got banned they're instead trying to get people to rally to their support.

[kreetx]

But there is literally no trace of wrongdoing. If you're going to sanction somebody, keep at least some screenshots around. Briefly digging in NixOS repo and the Discord I could find nothing even questionable the banned person did.

Regarding the image/homepage being provocative, again my suggestion would be those be. The fact that you don't agree with some person on an issue is no grounds for a ban.

[thulle]

> If you're going to sanction somebody, keep at least some screenshots around.

That might not've been a consideration when the offending posts were removed. The ones doing the removal might not even be the same people handling suspensions.

> I could find nothing even questionable the banned person did.

That might be an issue of legitimacy. I'm involved in some discord modding, and we got admin-only channels mirroring the others to keep logs of everything. I have no idea how suspensions are handled in the NixOS community though, maybe moderators are picked to handle things in their own discretion.

> The fact that you don't agree with some person on an issue is no grounds for a ban.

That's not what's happening here though, it's the intentionally provocative behaviour?

Say some person argues that Israel is a nazi state dehumanizingly enough to get a warning, and gets told to stop derailing everything into a discussion about that since it's a detriment to a community that in itself has no connection to the issue. Agreeing to this they instead start sporting a green flag, or a little image with a free country between a river and a sea - maybe with a green flag on it - while linking to a page about how Israel is a nazi state. Then the issue the moderators have to consider isn't whether they agree on how to describe Israel, but if the actions of the warned person are still acting inflammatory and derailing the community.

A bit over the top example to make it clearer, if you find it an incomparable situation just tone down the actions in it accordingly.