I'm glad this threat isn't dirrected at me, I would surely be quaking in my boots at a legal threat from a sexually frustrated 14-year-old who doesn't understand that everyone's mother tells them they are special.

@Chaosesqueteam: My legal team has reviewed your offer and given it great consideration. They have advised me the safest course of action is to ban you for repeatedly breaking the rules, ignoring warnings, and disregarding requests for corrective action. I'm being told this will minimize my liability in the upcoming legal apocalypse that is inevitably descending upon my head. After weeks of lost sleep and much wringing of hands, I have decided to take their advice.

"we_order_you"

"That is our offer"

I mean really - this guy is far too entertaining to ban....

Couldn't he (/they) just be banned from posting but still have their assets/portfolio pages up and still be allowed to contribute to the site?  I don't see the harm in that, it seems reasonable to me.  As much as I think this is all stinky and ridiculous, I still see the ability to "speak" and the ability to contribute as two entirely different things.

@LDAsh In principle that seems reasonable to me - but I suspect there's the technical issue that it isn't possible, and adding that feature would take time. On the one hand, I'd agree that we wouldn't want a werewolf ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 ) to set a precedent for undue restrictions. But on the other, I'm not sure that adding this feature to the site is high on the priority list, compared to other things.

My view is similar to what I commented when the same poster brought up the Debian issue 18 months ago ( http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/debian-has-rejected-opensource-game-gi... ) - in theory, there's no need to prevent the user contributing, but if one breaks the rules and/or pisses off the admins of a site (in this case now resorting to legal threats - at least it's a step up from hoping for serious injury!) and as a result you can no longer upload your stuff, I've got the world's smallest violin.

Funnily enough it seems I somewhat predicted this situation: "Imagine if someone sent such an email to Open Game Art? They'd rightly be banned. True, I might suggest we needn't disallow any Free art they'd done if it seemed good, OTOH being banned would prevent such a person uploading it themselves anyway."

@LDAsh his assets are still accesible via search function http://opengameart.org/art-search-advanced?name=MikeeUSA

It is a site limitation or design that the access to his profile page is restricted

There is no feasible way to have a separate forum and submission user. Mold and others are correct; the profile is blocked with the user, though the content was specifically set to stay in place instead of being deleted.

Even if that were not the case, his hateful slurs, threats of violence (threats of litigation is not an issue, but violence is), politics, and religious content were not relegated to just the forum. His continued submitting was just more of the same. I'm all for free speech, but this is more like someone spray painting a building with graffiti, then shouting "oppression!" when they're arrested for it. Even if what was said should be protected, the method used is not allowed. Not that it matters, because there is no way to half-ban someone. 

@surt et al:  Can folks please refrain from making personal attacks here.  It's a real shame to see poeple responding to a thread on MikeeUSA's banning by indulging in the same kind of language that got his account banned.  I understand if you are upset by chaosesqueteams statements but you are not helping nor moving anything forward by attacking him personally.  All you're doing, aside from violating forum policy, is putting the Admins in a tough spot by making them appear to give preferential treatment to some accounts or personal attacks versus others.

This is a false equivalency here. Commenting that someone is violating the rules in a bad way is not as bad as violating the rules yourself. I'd rather not chastise a valued contributor just to appear to be fair to someone breaking the rules left and right and demanding to get away with it. People who act that entitled to anything should be slapped down just so they don't think they can do worse.

That being said, if ChaosMikee is now banned, there's no reason to have additional comments on the whole situation. The threads should be locked and preferably made invisible. Not deleted, though. If the guy really makes a nuisance lawsuit (because that's all it'd be) it'd be nice to have copies of his posts that clearly indicate who we're dealing with here. No lawyer or judge or anybody can feel sympathic to this guy in even a small way after seeing his posts.

No.  A personal attack is a personal attack.  'He started it!' is not a valid excuse, nor does it magically make ad hominem attacks productive or useful discourse.