So if I can show you one recent incident of someone “disagreeing” and getting banned, you’ll agree that there can be, even if unevenly applied, a litmus test for posters at FR?
Why don't you just present your evidence? You're asking for a verdict just based on your suggestion that you'll be able to produce some example if needed.
One person being banned for not agreeing in lock-step would not constitute a ‘trend’. The admins/mods, after all, ARE only human, even though they alone would know that person’s posting history.
I’m thinking that if there have been that many banned merely for disagreeing or for not being in ‘lock-step’ with JR, you could come up with more than ONE name. That seems only logical.
Point being, over the years, I’ve seen well-behaved trolls (I know, sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it) NOT get banned while disagreeing vehemently. I’ve been here from the beginning.
I think for the most part, the mods are fair. I’ve only objected once, in all these years, to the removal of a thread for no good reason I could see...other than the possible request of one poster to do so. That person would have had to be somewhat liberal, btw, to request the removal of the thread. In other words, NOT in lock-step with the rest of us on that thread. Which only supports my stance and position on this issue.