Unfotunately, it simply isn't practical to go into great detail on why a person is banned, which is why most forums don't. We give a brief explanation in the suspension/ban list, but beyond that, it isn't appropriate to discuss in detail why a person was banned.
I was banned on Mania. It was a ban that was issued due to another member crying to and manipulating the mods. I had some fault, but the other poster as well. I appealed the ban, and it was reduced from 7 to 3 days and the other poster (who originally got away scott free) was then also banned for three days.
I followed the process and a wrong was at least partially rectified. Was three days fair? I don't think so, but the mod that I consider fair and the guy running the site at the time (Steve H., who I respected) felt my actions still deserved some punishment.
That was between me, the mods and the admin.
On BroncosForums, we take it a step further. Not only can someone appeal a moderator action (ban or otherwise), but we encourage members to give input on policy, rules, etc. The list of things that came from member input on this message board is VERY long, from Mile High Salutes and High Fives, to the Lounge. Almost nothing about the way this message board is run or configured didn't come from member input.
However, there are still limits. Publicly appealing a ban, and going into detail about said ban, isn't going to happen. Since with the exception of spammers and trolls from other forums, I don't think there have been any suspensions that were the result of a single action. Therefore, once we go down the road of publicly discussing a ban, we (the mods and I) would have to start listing all of the many problems that a given poster has had. That simply isn't going to happen in a public arena.
On a lot of forums (including other Broncos forums) it is very common for a person to get banned over a single action. Even those these forums rarely, if ever, go into details about a banning, it would actually be easier, because they are much quicker to pull the trigger based on 'their' rules. On Broncosforums, it takes a lot of rules violations before someone finally gets banned.
I think a lot of us could look in the mirror, or look at our own posting history, and agree that it takes a shit load to get banned here. Many say we are too slow to pull the trigger. However, since our suspension are a sum total of behavior by a poster, and the last violation will just be the 'straw' that led to the suspension, it would make it that much harder for us to 'publicly' discuss a ban, even if it was a good thing to do, which I don't believe is the case.
So, if someone would like to start a Town Hall discussion on "Publicly Appealing Bans" or something to that effect, we can discuss it in detail. Since NUB has stated multiple times that he doesn't want to discuss his ban in detail, but instead he and MO have raised concerns about the fairness of moderating, specifically allowing gay bashing (their term) to be post, but anti-God statements are moderated, I think we need to keep this thread focused on MO's original complaint.