Lots of comments from the direction of "J'accuse!" and a few raising the matter of consequences of clemency and how to manage those re-admitted.
Some observations that are part of the context:
1) Guests can currently view 10 posts a day (it was less but was relaxed at some point) and a few threads and boards are closed to them. We know that some members look in as guests because that suffices their passing interest or need to spot/avoid a prospective punt. The level of guest access perhaps needs recalibrating as part of the change to bans.
2) Management have stated in the past that amongst the silent crowd are retired punters whom they wish to grant continued social access. These veterans are not identifiable to the rest of us and are part of the community being safeguarded by the crackdown on challenges by non-mods. I don't know how such veterans are verified.
3) Do genuine, committed lurkers/leeches who never or have barely commented in the past and currently have no intent to post/review change their spots? Whatever their reasons for silence, if we can't enter into sincere conversation with them then why would they be motivated to change? Perhaps some sensitive or overly cautious types are amongst this silent majority, and they are the ones that management are trying to reach with the nicer tone they're enforcing. Perhaps some are hiding their activities from OHs and then finally they become free agents.
We have no published stats to indicate just how often the silent are logging in, so no context within which active members can perhaps appreciate how many % dip in daily, weekly, monthly etc. Knowing how many of the 10s of thousands of registered members aren't apparently taking much advantage would be meaningful even if we aren't told how many also look in as guests.
4) For the most part, at least for the years I've been here, the fear of loss of membership from continued silence has previously triggered seemingly minimal, infrequent, short-lived bursts of contributory posts from only a few "quiet ones". Of those there are some who toss a crumb every once in a while hoping that will suffice despite being far more active. Some may well post false events that raise no suspicions, thus protecting their privacy, maintaining access and waving our management on with an "I'm not the punter you're looking for" in fine Kenobi manner. How many of these really worry about banning? Could they make do as guests if the access afforded them doesn't lessen?
5) Hesitant posters are likely those that management are trying to encourage by enforcing better manners. They're a completely unknown percentage of the silent majority. We can all be hopeful that many thousands will come into the light.
But how many of them truly value membership such that bans are a suitable stick to discourage silence? Considering what they can access from outside the perimeter.
6) Active, sincere contributors of whatever disposition post because they all at least share the belief that give and take is karmicly better for their punting. Some are easily upset and can retreat into silence. All of these likely value continued and unimpeded access and are thus most responsive to methods of control.
7) Temp bans with the subsequent sword of Damocles seems to not only quash overly offensive behaviour it does also seem to reduce participation/contribution by some who have been slapped. Whether that is more than offset by the uptick in participation of quieter punters hasn't been shown with stats but perhaps (anecdotally) that is what's encouraging Management's current policing of behaviour.
8) There is presently no confidential channel of feedback between us and management with which they can actively measure meaningful and sincere opinion. Polls only get us part way there because people vote in their own interest and are not committed to any subsequent individual action in the absence of irresistible encouragement or unavoidable enforcement.
9) Adding more categories of banning could complicate administration somewhat, perhaps unnecessarily so. More or longer rules for UKPers to be cognisant of, those that bother.
Perhaps more records and more to debate if increased tolerance is to be maintained.
10) People who were banned have been found to have rejoined, sometimes after lengthy periods under their latest guise. Some rejoin multiple times, paying for each of those enrolments. Presently previously banned appear to be rejected on rediscovery we don't seem to be told if management challenge a returning offender and can be pursuaded to allow them to stay. If that happens then it would seem that we already have a functioning but opaque process for clemency. If Management have means and resource to identify, tag and keep watch on returners currently does it get any easier with changing the current declared practice?
11) Clearly there are those offences which cannot be forgiven. There were some expulsions for unruly behaviour between members which otherwise had nothing to do with SPs, there could/should be reason to consider re-admission either under original monniker or a new identity to protect them from victimisation from members (there are those within the community who bear grudges).
12) I can't recall if banned individuals find they have difficulty viewing the site as guests because their known devices are served "no entry" pages.
13) Without more transparency about how temp bans can be policed I don't see how 6 or 12 months off helps. Punters who are active more than once or twice a year will either "guest" in (if they can), re-register somehow, use an intermediary (search engine, another member, whatever) or use other sites.
Anyway, if we must have more penalties and granularity of temporary punishment then perhaps days, weeks or a month off for bad behaviour will suffice with re-instatement having served time. Fines by an otherwise opaque judiciary are a bad idea. Clemency for former perma-banned need only offer them the freedom to subscribe again. All this "legislation" should be published in the rules. Re-instatement under previous name, at least for some offenders, might have to be acknowledged so that the community are set straight on the grace to be given by all and perhaps the understanding and/or terms agreed between UKP and the returnee.
