Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
One warning is not the end of the world. Even a second warning may just get one banned from posting in a particular thread. Actual site banning seems like a high bar and requires repeated and/or egregious breaking of rules (like coming back with an alt account after a perma-ban). Even for repeat offenders I don't know if the first step is a timed ban (say a week or month) or if it goes straight to permaban, so there might be another level where sanity can set in for a poster.Ultimately it's up to them, but I genuinely hope they do. I'd rather be part of a forum filled with well intentioned folks with poor social skills than a bunch of mean people who learned to play by the rules. In the long term, it's about building a community.
Frankly, if someone has received feedback that they are not being a good member of the community time and time again in short order such that banning is on the table, then they aren't being a good member of the community. That means they have been unwilling or unable to correct their behavior based on the feedback from the mods. If they are good intentioned, then it isn't unwilling.
If someone is regularly disruptive or rude and does not change their behavior when provided with evidence, can they be a good member of the community?
But that's the most extreme levels where we are talking about banning. Someone is clueless or hot under the collar or whatever the reason and escalates to the bar where moderators step in, if the poster is good intentioned it will give them a reality check or maybe just a breather to correct their behavior and then we can all have better manners and be polite to each other even when we debate. A moderator saying something should be a wake up call, but it does not eject someone from our community without giving them a chance to correct poor behavior.