Dave did not break any rules.
We are all agreed on that. We have not been shown, and you will not show us, why you have accused him of breaking a rule that he did not break. It's no good saying he was spamming. He wasn't. That will not wash, and does not hold water, rather like my washing machine. Nothing was sent to anyone else's site. It was all on his own site. Repetition of the same blog? Which rule is that? So someone may have complained about these two unusual types of blog. Why did you take that complaint so seriously? Presumably, whatever that person says will carry the day, right or wrong, wouldn't you agree that's how it looks. There's someone out there of whom we should be afraid, very afraid. I know for a fact that there are other examples where people have been complained about for far better reason, and nothing has been do ne at all. And now, someone makes a complaint, even though no rule has been broken, and Dave is thrown out. Did you realise that Dave was the most community-minded person on this blog? So if you are sorry to throw him out, why not reverse the decision? You made the decision - not the complainer - you. So you can reverse it. Your hands aren't tied, are they? No-one bosses you about do they? You care about fairness to all, don't you, not just to one person's opinion (and their friends). If I complained and got ten others to make a similar complaint, even if it was unfounded, would you throw someone out in this same way? If that's all we need to do, then why don't we all start getting our little groups together and getting people we don't like thrown out. You can see that in that event, all the cliques would eliminate each other and there'd only be new writers left, Or maybe you only care about new writers, since they pay more, don't they? Maybe we are all expendable - or most of us, anyway, as long as your own personal favourites remain inviolable. (That's the view of many subscribers by the way).