I concur with Bill Grigg that the level of discipline, in some cases, seems harsh. However, apparently "banning," as practiced here, only means that the banned person has to set up a new account, loosing post counts, etc. Such a loss of online persona, however, fails in one of the requirements of public discipline. The offender simply disappears, possibly to be replaced by the same person with a different handle, and no one is the wiser. The offender has been punished, and is seen to be punished. But that should not be the primary objective of discipline. The primary objective of discipline is to persuade the offender to mend their ways, and this course only increases their ire, instills a possible desire for revenge, provides an impetus for further bad behavior, and creates an atmosphere of resentment. For the desired result to occur, the offender must thoroughly understand the reason(s) for their punishment. As far as I have heard, that has not been done. Furthermore, such explanation should be public, so that it can be seen by all and sundry that justice has been done, or at least thoroughly attempted. This has a further beneficial result: Having one's conduct paraded before the whole community creates considerable pressure to conform to the accepted community standards. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that such social pressure is perhaps the greatest deterent to bad conduct, and only fails with persons who have no desire to be part of a society. Those individuals are cast out, perhaps by rule or law, but always by the society itself.
I illustrate with a recent example from these forums: I was recently insulted by another member who used innuendo to do it. I said as much, and they confirmed the insult. I debated ripping their virtual ears off in an entirely civil way, but decided against it. My reputation here is well established, and although I may have made a fool of myself, he had definitely made an *** of himself, in public. No further action on my part, or anyone else, was required.