how is the decision to TS a member reached?

no dog in any fight just wondering

is it a decision by committee or does each mod have the power to TS if the act is egregious enough?
does the context of the posts/replies that has brought TS'ing a member enter the discussion?
if by group decision are there ways for a mod to recuse him/her self if conflicted?
do conflicts of interest in mods enter into the deliberations?
is there a lesser level of punishment?(like a 2 week ban on posting or replying)

i was here during the last 2 election cycles and i know the stone can drop in a hurry
but outside of that most banning i have seen involves repeated contempt for simple board rules

hard to believe sometimes that these people, in general, all friggin agree with each other
screw herding cats
its more like herding badgers

Let's say it's the middle of the night and some freeper is stinking up the board with a bunch of spam. If there is only one moderator on duty, they are empowered to deal with a situation like that without having to wait around to get consensus from another moderator before they take out the trash.

In pretty much every other situation, moderators must come to a consensus before members are banned. If the member is a newbie who clearly seems like they're in the wrong place -- they immediately jump in with conservative points of view, or they seem to be trolling -- the mods can take action with the consensus of just a few other moderators.

If the member is a long-term DUer, moderators must get a strong consensus -- they must get the input of pretty much all the other moderators who must then all come to agreement before a banning can happen. This usually requires a lot of discussion, and while the discussion is taking place, any single moderator who is not completely certain that the member should be banned may speak up and place a "hold" on the banning. The member can't be banned until the moderator releases the hold (or unless an Admin steps in and overrules). Moderators must give a reason when placing a hold, and their wish to not ban the member at that time must be respected by the other moderators. There is then usually more debate and more evidence is presented until the moderator releases the hold, or until everyone decides to move on and revisit the member at a later date if their troublemaking continues.

We used to have a system of warnings and suspensions but we decided to move away from that because it felt pointless and merely postponed the inevitable. If long-term members are causing lots of trouble we will sometimes contact them to let them know that they are on the verge of losing their posting privileges and give them one last opportunity to improve their behavior, but often we feel that this is not necessary.

Moderators are certainly permitted and in fact encouraged to recuse themselves from discussing banning certain members if they feel they can't make a fair decision for whatever reason.