Each time they ban someone (temporarily or permanently), they create a new thread detailing particular user, reasons to ban him, etc. Discussion happens there about the decision.

Fortunately, bans like this are rare on this site. We have somewhat frequent bans of blatant spammers, and those require no discussion at all.

Thankfully the users on this site are generally mature and thoughtful, with a genuine desire to learn and improve themselves. The reputation system offers a usually-gentle notice from the community. When a rebuke is needed, it is generally best done in private. Almost always when users get an official warning from moderators they immediately correct their behavior and apologize for the error. There is no need to make a public spectacle of the issue.

Occasionally we have people from very direct and brusque backgrounds who truly don't believe their statements were offensive. Other times there are individuals who have salty speech that would have made a sailor blush thirty years ago, with f-bombs and other profanities used as punctuation. In these cases a little education and guidance is often all that is required. There is no need to publicly shame them, some quiet correction (and a few downvotes) generally leads to better behavior.

We only see about two accounts like Graelig per year. Usually they start with some gentle public reminders in the form of downvotes, then progress to people making comments about the behavior on the discussion boards. Generally when that happens, moderators also quietly step in and have some private conversations with the user. Moderators ask if they understand what is wrong with the behavior, state specific things they can change to correct the behavior, and so on.

I hope that we don't need to have a public discussion forum on those very few individuals who are like Graelig. They act as though they want to contribute to the community, either as learners or advisers, and they generally act penitent when correction or guidance is given, but ultimately refuse to follow the rules of the site.

Many of Graelig's posts had useful gems and helpful pieces, and that is what makes this type of user so painful to ban. They seem to generally want to contribute. They seem to generally ask good questions or generally make insightful commentary. The problem is that they often add incendiary side comments that are antisocial or destructive. In Graelig's case, it was mostly his attitude and broad accusations of the form "My opinion is the only right one, if you disagree you are an idiot/racist/Nazi/sexist/bigot/whatever".

I am actually surprised by this. His reply to What game engine should I use? was actually helpful and on point. I was holding out hope.

That was my impression as well.

Actually, no I wont. I can no longer view his profile.

In his posting history (can you guys see this one?) he had many genuinely useful contributions. But he had a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. He'd make 2-3 good posts, then one terribly inflammatory post. Then several good posts, and another inflammatory post. Sometimes he seemed to be trying to be on his best behavior and follow the guidance he was given, but then he'd quickly relapse into an inflammatory stupor.

Looking over his last posts in reverse order, he had a useful contribution giving a link to a framework someone asked about, some useful game design tips about calculating an economy bias, another useful bit of engine advice, a major negative rant, some mildly-useful musings about code quality, then a negative musings about forums, some lounge opinions, some opinions on DIY syndrome versus NIH syndrome, a lounge opinion with some minor political name-calling, a useful post about skeletal animation and modeling, a minor insult, a useful post asking for information about animation, some lounge posts, some useful tidbits about SSE switching costs, some useful thoughts about multiprocessing costs, a useful interpretation of a confusing statement, then another mild insult...

So really it looks like he was running about 3 good to 1 bad. The problem was that the bad ones were REALLY bad.

In his final big rant went on with racism ("a racist hate-oppressor"), sexism, homophobia, Nazism, feminism and "the patriarchy", h1b visas, social justice, Glen Beck... and one line of discussion about the actual topic.