For the reason that it ought to be possible to respectfully raise a general observation which it is hoped will be to the benefit of the board, without it being incorrectly interpreted as a direct challenge to a specific person, decision or its outcome. Two members were being abusive/unpleasant - the given reason for penalties doesn't particularly matter - and since the outcome is both reasonable and proportionate there's no need to escalate to a formal dispute (particularly not on behalf of unpleasant characters) for what was a discretionary judgment call by a valued moderator.
But, since most people want to be able to continue to stay within acceptable reasonable limits when contributing positively, and want to avoid testing the boundaries in real-time, and without reference to precedent - it seems proportionate to say, without anyone feeling undermined or gainsaid, that religion and race are wholly separate matters - and conflating the two risks confusion. We all know that's the case, and saying so entails no challenge to a decision nor change to policy.
I am sorry if I've inadvertently antagonised you or Kev on this - I'll hope this explanation is seen in that light, and not as a continuation of an imagined slight, and I'll butt out.
