I think extended bans are almost aways counterproductive, whatever the reason. One has to differentiate between purely nuisance accounts, ones there just for spamming and trolling - which need to be cleared out - but people with a genuine engagement with the site are of mutual importance. If they get banned it rarely improves their future interactions, and if they have a genuine stake in the place, even if you find it irritating, permabanning is a very extreme penalty. I can't think of when you'd want to do it for a genuine member. We'll likely have very short (hours) 'cool-down' withdrawal of service, which the software will present as 'bans' (unfortunately) - just really to provide a break for some reflection in a situation which has gone too far.

What's your starting configuration? If you meet someone that you don't know, will you treat them with respect or disrespect? The idea that it must be 'earned' sounds like you'll start-off disrespecting them until you decide that they've earned respect. Now put the boot on the other foot. How about if you start chatting with someone and they disrespect you from the get-go. How's that feeling for you?

Sharing a condo with Elvis.

I haven't been 'defending' him at all. I have never once sought to justify what he has done to the various people here who have said that they were victims of his moderation. I was one of those. What I have done is point out the great service that he did this forum in the startup times. I wasn't 'conned'. 'Surprised' would have been a better word. Whilst I was going about getting sandboxed, warned and once banned by admins and other mods trying to build this place, that wasn't coming from his side, instead a commentary explaining what was happening and what turned out to be very good advice as to how to negotiate it. That's simply an empirical fact which I could prove in a court of law if I had to. It needed to be said. Saying it is in no way 'defending' his moderation actions, it's just making clear what happened. And if it doesn't fit in with the picture you want to have of the man, sorry about that, but real people are more complex than the cartoon villains some people want to deal with here. I should say as well that I am in no way acting as a 'spokesperson'. Never been asked, so far as I know, never wanted. I'm just putting out some facts that needed to be out there, if people really want to discuss this person.

He had the right to sue, just not the right to win. Simple principle at work there - if you plan to make some money by suing someone much richer than you, first work out how you're going to afford better lawyers than him. My tip, find a rich guy who never pays his lawyers. Then no decent lawyer will work for him and you'll win the case with the guy you met in the bar acting for you.