ofcourse bans influence votes, but the fact that 2 people voted no JUST for the fact that he's been banned before is dumb because we don't even know what it was that bowl posted nor how bowl reacted towards that

and i haven't seen anything in the likes of pornographic posts by bowl anywhere which makes the ban mean close to nothing in my eyes

EDIT: to clarify what i mean: aslong as we aren't affected by bowl's history it shouldn't sway our members votes.