While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.

But bans should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Certainly the conditions under which someone can be banned should be clearly spelled out. I absolutely don't think anyone should be banned for espousing an unpopular opinion. Automatic bans should never be done. But I think there are ways that people who just want to be contrary can be discouraged from being disruptive.

The people that have "an axe to grind" will do it within the rules set fourth by our administrators, if they break any of those rules they will become a part of the "case by case" process. Otherwise, everything else should be left for the community and our system to mitigate.

I enthusiastically approve.