I understand what you're saying Pete, but let me give you an example.
Some time ago, before you took over, SOMEONE yanked a post of mine. This was back when KN/LD were "a going concern" in terms of actually being accessible and around.
The pulled post appeared to be a purely malicious act on the part of the moderator who did it - I had a real good idea who, but no way to verify it, and no way to know why. There was no PM sent to me notifying me that it was gone - it just went "poof."
I queried as to what had happened and why to KN, asking specifically for the identity of the mod who had done the deed, and was basically told to go stuff.
I understand that if you yank a thread and remove 20 posts from it you can't deal with 20 requests for adjudication and review. That would clearly be unreasonable.
I guess the bottom line is that the moderator's deliberations are to remain a "secret", even from the person(s) directly affected. I find that unreasonable, but that's me. IMHO, as I said before, if you're debating something that I did, I think I have a right to be a part of that debate as an observer, know who's making the accusation(s) and the outcome of the vote, and offer a rebuttal.
Second, a process which allows "X" votes to convict where a "no" carries no weight is inherently unfair, especially if a minority of the moderators meet the quorum. What you effectively end up with is "special interest" groups that can do what they want; they are, for all intents and purposes, unstoppable. This bothers me just from a process perspective.
I went to a private high school many moons ago. We had a disciplinary committee made up of faculty, staff and students for "serious incidents"; the consequence of being referred to it could (and often did) include expulsion.
While their decision was not subject to appeal (who would you appeal TO - the headmaster was an integral part of this and he was the "final word") the committee NEVER met to take action with regards to someone's situation without them being able to hear the claimed allegations and evidence against them and to offer rebuttal, including, if necesasry, calling witnesses on their behalf.
Never.
Yeah, I know, that was a "more serious" situation. But in many ways it has an analog here. You were there in a private place, at their pleasure. If you broke the rules, you could be kicked out, and many people were. There were certainly allegations of favoritism and other malfeasance inside the committee while I was there, but this much I can say with certainty - if you got called before them, you heard their evidence and you had the chance to defend yourself before any action was taken.
You might lose your case (a lot of people did!), but you had a right to be heard, and you knew who voted for what.
This may be a completely unrealistic expectation - but you can't get what 'ya don't ask for!
I guess I separate out the pulling of posts from bans. For posts, heh, you get poofed, you get poofed. But bans are more serious in nature, in that they result in people losing contact with those who they have an affiliation with here; its not just a ban on POSTING, its a ban that cuts people off from contacts they have. That's pretty serious in my mind, and should come with some respect for due process.
If a "ban" simply locked posting to public forums (e.g. your PM abilities were left alone, and you could READ) it'd be less of an issue from my point of view.
Perhaps that's a "happy medium", along with making permanent bans quite difficult to impose.....
