> Frankly, I also don’t know how to strike the right balance when it comes to long-time members who break the rules infrequently but consistently.
Suspend them for a month the first time, ban them outright the second. Sounds like they're not interested in listening to reason. Also pour encourager les autres, etc.
Three-strikes-style rules like this make for easy decision-making, but they don’t make for good decision-making. They eliminate curiosity about the root problem, reject the reality of how humans learn (it is almost never linear), and usually end up backfiring catastrophically at some point. Compliance by fear does not make for open and healthy communities.
The fundamental attribution error makes us believe the problem must be that this kind of person is “not interested in listening to reason”, but I can tell you that the ones who aren’t interested in listening make that abundantly clear when you ask them to stop. They are not the ones I struggle with. The problem cases are those who act in good faith but have trouble regulating their emotions, infrequently enough to not be an obvious menace, but consistently enough that I recognise their names.
Sure but they also give consistency, avoid the sheen of "you can behave badly if you do it infrequently", and avoid the kind of loophole lawyering you often get when rules aren't consistently and stringently applied.
> usually end up backfiring catastrophically at some point.
Having been in many forums where bad behaviour[0] was not rooted out at source immediately and forcefully, I can say from my experience that also ends up badly. Perhaps not for the people in charge and their favoured brethren, I'll grant you.
[0] Including my own on occasion, I am ashamed to say with hindsight.
Suspend them for a month the first time, ban them outright the second. Sounds like they're not interested in listening to reason. Also pour encourager les autres, etc.