"Mass ban on Conspiracy Theories" thread locked and deleted? Implications for other users?

The thread was deleted because if I was to go through and warn/delete all the individual posts that should have been deleted then there wouldn't have been much left.

That's a cop out in my opinion. From the outside, it looks like you deleted it to hide the fact that anybody can be banned at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, just because you didn't like them. You had plenty of opportunity to address and sanction posts as the thread progressed, but refused, you were even called out for it by multiple posters (including myself). To let it slide then use it as justification for not just closing but deleting the thread is a cop out.

I asked in the thread and nobody was able to answer: what constitutes "mass banning"?

Multiple people banned without notice at the same time. You might have gotten a more robust answer if folks were aware of the number of posters who had been banned, but alas, it was all cloak and dagger stuff hidden behind some faux-GDPR nonsense. I suspect this was deliberately withheld to prevent accusations of bias because the number of posters banned was actually around 2, who you didn't like, but that's just me.

There is no implications for other posters. They haven't been banned.

Yet.

But the sword of damacles is now hanging over everyone's head that they could, at short notice for SFA reasons. If this is the case, everyone should know.

I decided on a measure in order to try improve posting in a particular forum. As an admin, and with discussion with the other moderators this is something I am entitled to do. I could have PMd a poster but the outcome would be the same. I could have gone back and banned on warnings in the forum but the outcome would have been the same.

Just because you can do something, that doesn't mean it's a valid or correct measure. "I banned him because I'm entitled to ban whoever I want" is no justification for banning anyone. I asked everyone, including you by name, to show us where and what their actions were that justified the bans and all I got was crickets. The outcome wouldn't have been the same at all if you'd PMd them, they'd have known they were banned for a start and could have been made aware of the reasons why. You didn't, which is another cop out, so the thread was started.

Changes will be made in the forum. The moderators don't need the permission of the posters to make changes.

I never claimed otherwise. At the very least, however, I'd expect a robust argument, instead of "you were being a dick, no I wasn't, yes you were, prove it, no you're banned and you've decided to close your account so thread locked and deleted ok bye thanks, don't worry everyone else, this is just a personal hit the rest of you needn't worry".

Access isn't removed "willy-nilly". If you get forum banned or sitebanned it's generally for a reason. And you know why. Other posters don't always see what the moderators see.

Except that wasn't the case here. The posters in question didn't know, they asked why, weren't really given a straight answer and the thread was locked as a cop out of providing those reasons. To them, and everyone else (bar a couple of axe-grinders) it looks like they were banned willy nilly. "Generally for a reason" means "sometimes it's for no reason". This is news to me and I've been on here for 20 odd years.

I didn't "abandon" the thread. I am not online 24/7.

You told everyone you were busy and would return when free. You returned to the thread in the early AM, locked it and left everyone hanging with multiple questions and requests for clarification. Again, from the outside, it looks like the reason for this is because addressing the requests and questions was too uncomfortable.

Some people disagreed with the action taken. Some people welcomed it. We're not going to please everyone.

The people who agreed with it were, almost exclusively, people with long-held, years old grudges. Including someone who had been banned for lying in the forum, and only came in to the thread to piss on graves. That alone should have given everyone pause to reflect if the decision made was the correct one.

If you aren't on the moderators' radar you are unlikely to be forum banned out of the blue. If you pick up a ban then despite protestations of innocence you'll have a fair idea you've been pushing it for a while.

Unlikely….but not impossible. As was the case with the posters in question who were banned without warning and without being "in the firing line" as it were. For all intents and purposes, these guys had zero idea that their behaviour was deemed unacceptable and people were actively asking for examples when the thread was closed. How are the rest of us to know what's crossing the line if we don't know where the line is and everything is all done behind closed doors?

The upshot of this entire episode is that you can be banned for whatever reason an admin thinks up in their head, whether that reason is valid or not and the accuser has zero onus to back up their reasons. Hiding behind "we don't discuss individual cases" is another absolute cop out when there are far-reaching and serious consequences for everybody who uses the site. I've defended the mods and admins on here before from cranks and nuisance posters, but "I don't like you even though you've done nothing wrong, GTFO" is as close to an abuse of power on this site as I've ever seen. I'd wager that if a mod did it, they'd be stripped of their banning privileges. This is a huge deviation from normal practice, despite your wishy washy claims that it has happened before, and deserves to be teased out so we all know what the story is going forward.