Wait... quoting an infracted post in an official context to further transparency and increase trust in your team - clearly a good cause - might be considered trolling? Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...
For your info, I started a topic on the mod subboard on the matter. If it were up to me alone, I might as well pull BK and give you my password so you can see how slow, boring and devoided of any sinister motives the process is. I'm genuinely unsure what the proper line of proceeding is here. I'm not sure whether Dave would be pleased to see moderated content surviving online, even in this form.
I think the idea is that if a post is offensive enough to be deleted for violating the ToS, we don't want it to be re-posted. If it's not appropriate for the forum, then it shouldn't be on the forum.
However, I don't think that precludes mods discussing what the basic genre of an infracted post was, without quoting in verbatim. E.g., describing it as "a post advocating violence against members of Congress", or something like that. If mods so desire, they could also summarize the genre of posts that Evergreen tended to give in the past that led to her ban (since it's not just this one incident). E.g., was the pattern of violating the ToS mostly because of advocating violence, for personal attacks on other posters, or something else?
Lacking the complete list of Evergreen's infracted posts over the years means that regular posters can't necessarily come to a completely informed position on whether the ban was justified, but I'm not sure why they need to. Getting a summary of a few sentences should be good enough. I've never heard of a message board where admins give more than that when a poster is banned.
Poll
