I don't think "does not try to improve" is an actionable criterion. "does not show improvement" would be, but trying to do something is an internal process.
Of the two people banned so far, they've both talked about how they either don't want to change or how any change is currently impossible or will be impossible forever and so they did not intend to try: I think in general we try to base stuff on what's said rather than what we think or feel about the particular user. Edit: I have become an academic and literally everything I say is tl;dr: everyone so far has said they're not trying.
huh. it still feels like not great wording but given how short it has to be (someone who can read, comprehend, and reflect something longer wouldn't be banned) it's probably a reasonable compromise is there an abbreviated process for if a banned user evades the ban?
I'm not sure: I know that for a few months we were just not accepting new members from European VPNs unless they emailed Seebs beforehand to talk about it. Oh, and when a subaccount was used in an evasion effort, that was summarily banned. But also I am not Seebs, who will presumably be back after the thing they needed to do and will be able to speak about it more directly.
if i can get meta for a second... i think any fussing about the exact wording leads to the place we specifically don't want to go, where there are Rules and people loophole and edge their way into exhausting the mods and upsetting the userbase while thinking they're Winning. in the end, we ban somebody when we seriously just can't deal with them anymore. condensing it into three criteria is just an effort to help folks understand what caused us to become so Done.
