If someone behaves like a pest, and is yeeted for it, what is the purpose of the ban? Generally speaking, the purpose of the ban is to force the objectionable behavior to stop, right?

If the banned person reflects on why they were banned, and truly changes their behavior, and thus stops being disruptive, then overturning the ban is, in my opinion, the correct course of action.

Not saying this person I’ve never heard of before deserves to be unbanned right now, obviously, but ostracizing someone for offenses committed elsewhere seems a bit much. They heave him from the official Golang stuff, fine, that’s the consequence of his actions. Can they really dictate that a person is permanently barred from everywhere? Seems like too much power.

More importantly, though, it seems counterproductive. Being fully yeeted from the entire universe means this person has no option but to dig in, in a “Me against The World” sort of mentality, with no option but to either stop participating socially, or ban evade (which is anti-social, too!).

By barring someone for ever, and everywhere, the problem is not resolved. He can never show improvement, because he has no way of doing so.

No, I say each corner has to deal with this sort of problem on their own, and while I think it warrants keeping a special eye on someone’s behavior when they join a new space, I don’t think it warrants barring them from doing so.

He’ll probably just join as “Schpeter Schbourgon” anyway. What then? Now the community he joined has no warning that he might deserve extra scrutiny, and he has no chance to redeem himself. Seems counterproductive to the actual goal of banning someone.