<is disruptive, argumentative, abrasive, and annoying to other members>

It is interesting that you do not see others here having the exact same qualifiers. And let us look at those in more detail.

Argumentative. I thought this is the place to present your arguments. I'm not convinced arguing should be a reason for action againt any member. Unless you repeat yourself several times as has been done by a few without any consequences. This must be a seventh rule of use, since I don't see it in the 6 that are published.

Abrasive. How do we define that? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder? This must be a eighth rule of use, since I don't see it in the 6 that are published.

Annoying. I find half of the posters here to be annoying at times. Some all the time. But I would not request any action against them just because I thought them annoying. This must be a ninth rule of use, since I don't see in the the 6 that are published.

Disruptive. I think there is a reason why disruptive is not mentioned in the six rules of use. How does one define disruptive if abiding by the other six rules?

IMHO we should enforce the current 6 rules before making up new ones.

Lastly, I must assume that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Treasurer and being a Hub leader. If there is some minimun office that needs to be maintained, then the removal should be automatic if one fails to meet the minimun. Hence, I do not see any relationship to the request and the member's current office. Is there a reason it is mentioned? Clarification?

Opty