Don't think it's quite that simplistic. The "rules" seem to more fluid for some owners than others.
And didn't most of the suspended account owners, with a few exceptions, think they WERE following the rules when they got suspended? Sans the exception(s), has there been any indication or specific outline of what rules got broken, by those owners, to warrant the suspensions in the first place?
Understand the "my house my rules" concept and also that Wyn's stick is much MUCH bigger than any owner out there. Still, what actually have most of the suspended owners done intentionally, to warrant being locked "out of the house" for a now, ongoing, seven months? All fingers still point to Wyn being in error in this process.
Reminds me of the guy that stepped of the curb to cross the street and got run over by a bus. His dying words were "but I had the right of way"
He was right of course, I would say he was dead right
In my talks with Wyndham my goal was not to prove myself right, neither was it to win. All I wanted to get to the other side of the street alive and well
I'm not going to presume that my way is right for everyone but I gotta say, if I had chosen to fight I think I'd be as dead now as the guy run over by the bus and my dying words would have been "but I didn't do anything wrong"