zlacker

That's not a case for rule-free bans, but for writing better rules-- including, if necessary, rules that are broad, flexible, require substantial interpretation, etc.

And that doesn't address the entire first part here:

> The moderation team is disempowered to ban people for driving away many more contributors worth of time than they have contributed themselves

The contributor-hour estimation doesn't exist. (I struggle to imagine how it even could.) It's a rationalization which has come up because the most prominent person they want to ban is a consistent, prolific, long-time contributor and they need to say something to make it seem like his participation is a loss for the community as a whole.

It seems like what they really want is arbitrary bans of political opponents.

>>pxc+(OP)
Those broad rules were proposed and rejected on the basis of being too broad. That is exactly what the mentions of "concern trolling" are about, and as that is an effective way of preventing any change to the structure that would allow to drive those people out, this cycle has continued for months, if not years.