I read the article and full disclosure, I don't use Dribbble and am not a member. My thought is that temporarily suspending a user based on report from community members is reasonable. Dribbble looks like a very social/community-centric site, I'd imagine if a rogue member were to post inappropriate content, the community can come together and help moderate. This also mean that if community members feel personally offended and take it the other way, and ding someone like in this instance, the site steps in and make it right. Again, Dribbble unbanned him shortly after. I just feel like it's a non-issue-but that's just my opinion.

That is very obviously not what happened.

https://dribbble.com/turnislefthome

50k followers, no new shots since February. This isn't a "rogue account" posting "inappropriate content."

Don't you think it is suspect that his account (no activity in months) is "flagged" on the same day the CEO blocks him on Twitter for legitimate chirps?

The guy was ranting away on twitter about some recently announced changes, attacking the company and the CEO. It doesn't take a conspiracy for both the users to flag him and the CEO to block him in response.

I don't know and I'm not going to try to guess, but I think the simplest answer is the most likely and the simplest answer is that the angry rant elicited strong reactions from multiple people.

This "guy" has been an integral part of the Dribbble community for as long as I can remember, churning out and sharing absolutely incredible work. Just look at his portfolio. Front page material, literally created a new style trend with his desaturated low-poly mini scenes.

Dribbble got from him being a member far more than he got from being on Dribbble. If there's someone who full on deserves the right to criticize the site, that'd be him.

CEO picked a personal fight with one of most visible and respected members. He should've not. It was indeed _petty_.

It's great he has been such a strong contributor to the community, but that doesn't mean people can't object to a twitter rant.

> CEO picked a personal fight

Did he though? That's not evident. Maybe you know differently?

Honestly, I don't really care, but I see one guy ranting in public, throwing around angry insults and accusations without backup and I'm OK if people don't give him what he wants.

So you don't don't think any social network company is good, because they all do this to some extent, some more explicitly than others.

On a different note, maybe I just see this differently.

> “In this specific case, community flags triggered a temporary suspension."

It seems like the comments this user was making did not resonate with users of the site. This is the reality of having a social site: you have to deal with people's actions, decisions, and opinions, however rational or irrational you view them to be. It's the same kind of thing that happens almost anywhere else in any other social situation.

Or Dribbble is lying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯