[WhiskyRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Mason doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, but that's really neither here nor there.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the responses here... to me they smack of an overwhelming naivety. Paulp compared the owner of the website to a Nazi. The owner banned him.

If you think that's extraordinary behavior, I suggest you spend a day walking into businesses, asking to speak to the owners, and then calling them names including "Nazi." How many owners do you think will toss you out? If you think it is less than a significant percentage, you're wrong.

Call your boss a Nazi, and see if you get fired.

*shrug* This is the way the world works. Walk into someone's backyard and call them names, and they will often ask you to leave. If you don't like it, feel free to diatribe about it in your LiveJournal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where I find fault in your comparison, even though I think it's down the same road as my thought process: while this is indeed a "business" of sorts with an "owner", or someone's "backyard", the forums are (correct me if I'm wrong) a place for discourse, whereas a shoe store is not. Putting it into that context, while the owner of a shoe store who gets called a nazi may have every reason under the sun to throw out the customer, I question whether it is in the best interest of the owner of a public forum to throw the person out if reasonable discourse is being furthered (it is easy to predict that you will say Paul's statements weren't reasonable discourse, a point on which I disagree; while perhaps immature (another point on which I disagree), the fact is it simply stated opinions on the status of this site, valid opinions and valid concerns).

Here's my point. It's true, the owners of 2+2 can do whatever they want and ban whomever they want. However, they must do this with caution in order not to cross the line where the value of 2+2 as a public forum is lost. You go from the RGP end of the spectrum to the polar opposite, which is (in my opinion) completely boring and useless. I admit, that line is often hard to draw. I don't think Paul crossed it. Certainly, criticizing 2+2 and its owners constantly, thoroughly, and inappropriately may lead to a ban. However, a per se rule such as the one apparently adopted here where any criticism of the forum operators leads to a ban is uncalled for.

I would go so far as to say that Paul SHOULD be allowed more leeway. It has never been denied (for the most part) that Paul, when he does contribute, is a valuable contributer. Given his position in the poker world, be it as a player, commentator, or simply "in the know", I believe a forum such as this has added value with him as a part of it.