Moderators often have no choice but to enforce the TOS, even though the violation is generally quite benign.
If the community interprets the violation as ban worthy, then the community should vote to ban the member.
Forcing the moderators to act on the TOS without a fair trial is nothing short of political dictation, and the moderators often don't want to ban the violator, but are required to do so because the victim group stages a huge protest that disrupts the flow of the website. The moderator is then held hostage by the TOS and the victim group.
Imabench makes a good point, but I would argue that a community justice system would greatly benefit the site, both in participation and in resolving disputes with proportional response.
....and the point here really is about proportional response and impartial review of the victim's complaint.
Additionally, the accused get's to face the accuser in a controlled environment.
I feel that this could lead to some serious abuse amongst people who are disliked amongst the debate.org community. When someone is not that popular, it could lead to an abusive system where the majority rules the minority.
I favor trials, but a majority vote banning system is not a good way to solve conflict - it could create more conflict.
We already have something for a majority vote banning system.... Its called the trial system. That is best used when dealing with members whose banning is being contested by a large group of people on both sides, such as Izbo. However most bannings deal with typical idiots who spam, advertise, or post porn everywhere, and for those members the mods are more then enough to ban them, remove their material, and resolve the situation.
Basically, a majority vote banning system comes in handy for cases that are really unique and involve very special circumstances, but for the typical banning of noobs and idiots, mod banning is fine
Most members who would be voting on whether or not to ban a member would be doing so on the basis of ignorance or misinformation. Moderators, who are privy to such information, are in the best position to determine who should or should not be banned. However, the banning process should be publicly explained and warnings of members should be posted in the open forums, that all may know where everyone else stands.