In the USA we have a doctrine wherein it does not matter why the punch was thrown just that the one who threw it is charged with assault.
Rarely is shared responsibility assigned and shared punishment given.
And on forums the lines are fluid so even though they appear to be crossed to spectators the reality is that only the moderators can decide when the line has been sufficiently crossed. I would say that "promising" to hurt someone over a comment, to the point that you threaten to PAY someone to assault another person is well enough over the line.
Now, having said that, Dick in my opinion should NOT have allowed himself to get so upset over Gerry's comment BECAUSE it's all banter right? Isn't that what you said earlier?
What would you do if someone were to start a fight over a similar comment in a bar? You would certainly say that the person who threw the punch should have not allowed themselves to be so bothered by it.
I think that Dick's reaction is exactly the reason that it's not all just "banter" when you go after someone on these forums. When you are being demeaning and insulting it might be fun for you but if you don't know the other side as a person and are comfortable with that type of wordplay then it's probably not fun for them.
In football (proper football

) the provocateur and the retaliator are deemed equal offenders, with any leniency or benefit of the doubt going to he who was provoked. So, if player A spits in player B's hair, and player B turns around and punches him, they both get sent off, although player B would receive a lessor punishment in terms of ban or fine. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I have a hard time accepting your "words hurt" defence, not least as that finger can very easily be pointed at yourself. You are as demeaning or insulting as anyone. Either it's all banter and it all stays or it's all hurtful and it all goes - you decide. I know what I prefer but I don't make the rules. Which brings me onto...
I've been back from a 12 month ban for about 24 hours, and in that time have read at least a dozen reportable insults, which I've chosen to ignore. Sooner or later I'll bite and say something that, although tame to my eyes, someone will take great delight in reporting, so I'll be banned again. How is that fair? They might as well just get on and ban me now because we both know it's going to happen sooner or later. The mods just choose the path of least resistance (who doesn't?), and listen to those that shout the most, irrespective of the fairness. I seem to recall I got banned for starting a thread asking why we, as amateur players, should give the pros a free pass on their bad behaviour. In light of all that's happened in the intervening period, good job that thread was pulled.

I also did not contravene any rule, but was given a long list of non-specific adjectives as a reason. So, I either bend over and take constant sniping without comment or I report everything, which I don't want to do either. I cannot win.
So you will have to forgive me if i'm a little skeptical about the rules and their enforcement. I think people on here should toughen-up a little and realise it is no longer 1952, however. That few, if any, young people are joining this board is very telling. If you keep pandering to your existing market you're going to wake up with no one left sooner or later. There should be a 'wasteland' forum, where threads that have run their course and ended up in squabbling contests are moved to, to prevent the main forum from being clogged up. There's simply no reason to perpetually ban people as this place is about as tame as it gets. AZB mirrors pool in America: anachronistic, in need of modernity.