slinkybender said:
I'm curious as to what poeple think the current policy is.
Since I'm the first one to use that phrase in this thread, let me chime in. I typed and erase the phrase several times before getting tired and letting it go. I was toying with using the word guidelines, standards, normal posting
whatever, but none seemed right. I guess what am trying to say is that I don't think a provider's banned status should have any effect on whether anyone can review them. I was going to leave it at that, but I wanted to add something in to reflect that I hope such reviews won't lead to a continuation or resumption of whatever got the person banned in the first place, whether it was a flame war, self-reviewing, shilling, providers making fake negative reviews on each other, or other negative statements purely for the sake of hurting their competitors, efforts to circumvent the rules, etc.
I don't know if I've stated it eloquently enough to be considered a policy, but that's what I was getting at. I believe those are normal guidelines anyway, but I thought it was worth mentioning, because if someone has been banned for some reason, reviewing them may be more likely to incite something.
I know that at least one long time poster on this board (I can't remember who) has a hatred for a provider (I can't remember who) who either posts here or used to. I don't recall who it is so I don't know if they've been banned, but if someone reviews her, I hope that it wouldn't escalate needlessly.