Vetus apologized for the comment he made to Jayne, and went out of his way to make peace with everyone he thought he might have offended at Christmastime.
I can also add that Vetus sent me apologies before Christmas, which really wasn't necessary. I think Vetus' comments toward Jayne were repugnant and definitely banworthy, but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to ban someone a month after their bad behavior and after they apologized for it. Vetus can often be hot-tempered and I think he has in the past been in need of being sent off to cool off for a bit. But, it seems to defeat the purpose of sending him to cool off when he's been acting (relatively) cool. It's like punishing your dog two days after he soiled the carpet. The dog won't learn anything and only conclude you make no sense to them. And, they will continue soiling your carpet if you ever decide to let them back into the house!
This isn't my forum, I don't read everything Vetus posts, and I respect the choices of Vox. That said I think it would be beneficial to all if there was a better understanding of how moderation works here and what the penalties are for breaching what rules. I am sure there is a method to the madness, but for us it often looks like bans are applied haphazardly and on whim. While we don't need to know why anyone, even longtime posters, are banned I think we would all be more understanding if we understood the process under which someone might get banned. It might also help if moderation seemed a bit more consistent. I am not sure why Vetus got banned a few days ago for calling Jayne a "crypto-Jew" a month ago, but Hector didn't get banned after calling her that right after you stated you wouldn't tolerate that. Again, I am sure you have your reasons. But, I think it would help us all if we just had some guidelines as to how your moderation process works. And, I think this would help prevent people from violating forum rules if they knew what exact punishment would follow from that breach.
I have been on other forums where there have been an escalation of bans based on history. So for example after a first violation you would get banned for a day, second a week, third a month, and finally a permanent ban. Although some actions could cause an immediate permanent ban and the seriousness of various forum violations was explained so everyone knew. With this system moderators often handed out bans a bit more liberally since they knew they wouldn't be banning a person forever, and the person banned would also know what they did and would know to behave in the future. When someone finally got a permanent-ban they wouldn't be shocked and neither would the whole forum. And this system was fair as it gave ample warning to the person and meted out punishments for bad behavior as it occurred rather than after a certain undefinable accumulated amount of bad bad behavior.
I suspect you're not the kind of person that wants to sit down and create a moderation flow chart for us, but I think especially with people paying subscriptions people have a right to understand how moderation works and what exactly could cause them to get banned. I think your desire to reduce the amount of personal invective here is a good one, but you won't succeed unless everyone understands what your policy on enforcement of the rules are. I also gather you are quite busy, so perhaps you might want to consider deputizing some people to help you moderate with the corollary that you had final say in all bans. That way we wouldn't have to wait for housecleaning when you have the time and energy for it.