User blog comment:LordJumpy/My opinions on the wiki./@comment-24057825-20130518143535

You know, I've always wondered...

Some bans, like bans about arguments... NOT bans involving excessive use of profanity, but SOME bans...

Couldn't they be talked over first? Instead of instantly banning?

As most/some/none of you know, my checklist when I come on chat and there is a problem like this: Interview one side, interview the other side, ask bystanders if any, question both users based on the others problems, and see if I can get them to apologize to eachother. If not, or if a user did indeed insult another user is just plain causing too much trouble for everyone involved, I then ban them. This method has caused many less confusions then other CM's banning techniques, which are as follows.

Random User: OTHER RANDOM USER SAID BAD STUFF TO ME IN PM!

Other Random User: Wait, but it was in the context of..

~CM has banned Other Random User~

Then everyone says, "Yay good job."

Even though it wasn't. That one user hates you permanently. You may not care, but it matters.