Indeed. How is banning anyone going to provide a stronger signal than an announcement saying "this is a banworthy offence starting now"?
It seems to me that all we can possible accomplish here is throwing away possibly-constructive commenters.
It's highly probably that anyone with enough karma to do any sort of damage with this is a high or medium-value user; downvotes have a cap based on one's own karma total.
One could argue that this sort of behavior is antisocial and implies the perpetrator is probably not someone we want on the site. But that's exactly the logic that leads to downvoting everything a person has posted!
As one of the people who was downvoted, I find it highly probably that whoever was responsible (in my case, and probably others) was acting in good faith. How could they have known to abide by a rule we are just now introducing?
Below is a message I just got from jackk. Some specifics have been redacted 1) so that we can discuss general policy rather than the details of this specific case 2) because presumption of innocence, just in case there happens to be an innocuous explanation to this.
So... thoughts? I have mod powers, but when I was granted them I was basically just told to use them to fight spam; there was never any discussion of any other policy, and I don't feel like I have the authority to decide on the suitable course of action without consulting the rest of the community.