I'm working that we see each other's problems. CIAMM has admitted conducting the deletion and ban, and as I said we were both in consultation at that time and tentatively permitted it to stand to determine developments. If either of us had unbanned at that time without the full consent of the other, don't you see how that would be a greater hit on the unity of the leadership than the events that actually happened were?

We have for some months been in discussion about special handling of posts that accuse moderators, and the procedures we prepared for such an event failed us this time. Part of this discussion is to strengthen those procedures to prevent it from happening that way again. It doesn't need formality, but CIAMM has said that at least both of us signing off as to texts making implications against mods would be the path most related to what we can actually do. Does that sound reasonable? I would agree with him that if the post says this mod or all mods are bad or are deleting content, the first mod to spot it may not want to act alone. We are never to delete content solely because it accuses us of deleting content.

You've always had freedom to speak. You crossed a line, a forum rule, by charging the mods with "false witness" and saying that we ourselves use "false" with a double standard. The means to determine and address how much abuse we've engaged in is not splashing the front page, as your past agreement with the Matthew 18 rule implies. But again that part of the overstep is not the issue, as you have not sinned against me, I just need to determine if your actions were injurious to the flock, such as by resolving your concerns to prevent escalation. And protecting the flock was consistent with the ban, which is why I upheld it for the time it would take to research that. Since you currently claim no interest in the forum, that would technically mean you don't care about appealing your ban that will expire shortly anyway; but the real issue is whether this thread is a realm where you agree the Lord can use human means to grant you satisfaction for our offenses, that you may gain us as brothers.

If your speech has ever been chilled by mod action, that is wrong and I apologize. The goal of rules is to offer limited free speech with regulation that respects God and the speech sponsor (the LLC). If someone gets a wrong impression about any enforcement of the rules, there is no rule preventing them from asking, investigating, stating sincere charges, and so on. But use a little care for the flock, don't go oblique for awhile and suddenly burst out on the front page with the gratuitous headline. I'm sure you've been in a congregation where we really do all hold each other accountable, and that is what Jesus has empowered the three of us to do here.