Nope - a "ban" is perfectly acceptable network behavior...if you think separately about the address / username and the action / person. It's not really anything on the person, just on the actions of the address / username...it's network maintenance on problematic ports.
The user is free to modify his behavior / message / promises. But his message is still out there in its original form unmodified...it is old, stale, and expired. We can ask him to "rebroadcast" his new message (e.g., transferring to new voting address / etc).
Think about it the other way - what if a "good service" at an address is simply expired? What if it is a dead address? Shouldn't we warn people that it is an outdated message?
Really, if we "ban" problematic addresses...a user can just perform the same action from a different address. If he really wanted to...he could create a new username / etc. Or, the user could perform modified behavior at a different address and be welcomed back into the community...
And, it's a voluntary opinion from an officer which the community supports. It does not even have to be from all officers.
Anyone can say "this address is my enemy. I shall not support this address." Means absolutely nothing to the rest of us. The Officers have made rumblings in the forums that they do not like that behavior. Well, go find that user, engage that user, and ask him to modify his behavior (e.g., move funds from that voting address to new voting addresses and "re-campaign").
We are not a free-for-all community. If so, what is the point of selection and ranking in MMC? We are a self-regulating community to provide trust among members. We investigate, evaluate, and modify as the community requests.