I have certain reserves about this decision, and I have taken time to consider whether or not they were sufficient to raise a vote against the general direction of this tribunal. Ultimately I believe
@Polemarchos's errors are those of incomprehension rather than malice, and incomprehension can be fixed. In his (repeated) answers to the council, Polemarchos has made it clear that he believes his sanction is about him holding the "wrong" opinions, rather than the way he expresses them; this has been gone over at length by staff and council.
But the fact is that Polemarchos has so far refused to acknowledge the possibility of his misunderstanding, of his wrongful
approach, and that his attempts to answer this Tribunal have been so wrong-headed he ended up banned from his own Tribunal partly
to prevent him from further indicting himself with his own words. In the end it appears that the only way to protect Polemarchos from staff action is to ban him from speaking up in the first place, and so there is little reason not to simply ban him alltogether. This is, to some extent, regretable; although I cannot remember ever agreeing with Polemarchos, and I can remember him being hateful, there have been members with worse opinions than his who nonetheless did not warrant the ban because they knew how to monitor their own behavior.
But ultimately Polemarchos is mistaken about the process he is undergoing, mistaken about the demands made of him, mistaken about how to answer them, mistaken about how to interact with our community. He gives no indication that he might improve as a member. As such, I have no objections to make with the staff's decision.
