Just an observation. The Virgin hasn't posted since the morning of June 27th.

I'm speaking less about TV, and more about the situation in general, regardless of who it may apply to now, or in the future.
But I think TV is on a business trip at the moment. I could be wrong.

I consider putting people that you don't like on ignore to be routine when dealing with an internet forum with over 40,000 members, as you're bound to find someone that is not to your liking. And Richard refusing to post simply because of The Virgin's presence is pretty darn childish, and fully his prerogative, as no one forced it upon him.

Unfortunately, not everyone will decide to put him on ignore, and the replies that clog up threads can still be pervasive and visible. Contributing members certainly can't be expected to ignore everyone who feels the need to say something about a clear and obvious distraction.
It returns to the idea that somehow everyone is expected to adjust to a disruptive person, versus a disruptive person adjusting to the set standards of a forum that practically everyone else knows and accepts.
And that's not how this forum is run.

Again, choosing to ignore another member or choosing to refrain from posting is up to each individual member, as nothing is forced on anyone, just as no one is forced to come on here at all.

It's would be nice if we could all get along, but that is obviously not an option. How "disruptive" another poster is is completely relative, but all that really matters are the moderators'/admins' opinions on the matter.

Urban deciding to stop posting until he gets his way is like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum in the supermarket until their mommy gives in and buys them a candy bar. If you give in once, they will do it again and again because they know that is how they can get their way.

check his profile page, he posted a message stating that he was leaving.

And it is my opinion, amongst others', that disruption is not merely gauged via a personal standard, but by the reaction of the community I'm here to serve. Obviously, we make a judgment call about whether that reaction is legitimate or not. That's what we do. And that's what we're doing.

That's one way of looking at it, but it doesn't really give the moderators any credit in their ability to discern whether it's childish pressuring, or a legitimate concern.
But, ultimately, you're right. The entire thing is a moderator decision. If our decisions aren't liked, no one is forcing the dissenters to post here. The point of the matter is getting it across that the moderators do want to take the concerns of the community into account when making some decisions. And in this particular case, the concerns are obvious, regardless of whether there's an option to ignore the concern or not.

The loss of a member like Virgin is no bad thing. However, the loss of a long standing member who has greatly contributed to the boards and previously spent a considerable amount of spare time dedicated to it's running, is.

Freebase. I wrote those rules years ago and the rule GB quoted;

It is the responsibility of the staff to protect and maintain the well-being of these forum. Consequently, we reserve the right to take any actions we deem appropriate to ensure these forums are not disrupted or abused in any way, including removal of content and user bans.

Was for this particular kind of situation.
Not only have the mods been trusted to run the site on the behalf of the Admin, they also have a responsibility to it's members.
If any member is directly responsible for disrupting the boards in any way and that includes losing valuable members because of their actions...stop fannying around and ban them!
No one member should be considered bigger than MB, especially if they have nothing to offer.

I realize that I am in the minority on this issue, so I'm really just wasting my breath. But nonetheless, if we lose Urban over this then that his his own decision. If he would let something like this run him off after 7 years then shame on him. Despite how much we dis/like another member, or who our friends are on here, I am against the banning of members who have done nothing wrong except to have differing opinions than their peers.

So if Urban decides that you or I get on his nerves next, and refuses to post until we are removed, you would be okay with that?

Nor should Urban, nor should you nor I.

I'm not just talking about Urban, or The Virgin.
How many people here have him on ignore?
I'm not talking about a perma ban either.
I've banned countless members over the years, some of which are still here and are great contributors.

There's a bigger picture than the here and now, oojay.
Take this thread...it should have been closed ages ago. In my opinion, all it does is lengthen the drama.
Christ, when a member gets banned these days the fallout in here continues for the duration and the returning member feels like his ban was unfair due to the amount of support they get irrespective of whether, or not they actually deserved it.
Which they always do btw!