Given Jeff's recent blog post about hellbanning users, I must say I think the idea (making that user's content visible to only them) is a good one.
However, the people in whose hands that power will be placed terrify me.
Jeff is saying that he doesn't like that bans can degenerate into meta-discussions about the fairness of banning, and in that respect I agree with him. But the meta-discussions do accomplish one thing -- they get more than one person to look at the ban and weigh in on what they think.
This isn't that I don't trust moderators (or, indeed, diamond moderators), but I don't trust any one single human being with an irrevocable and complete banhammer, where there's no potential to dispute things. (And if the user doesn't know they're banned, there's no potential for dispute)
Basically, I'd sleep a lot more soundly at night knowing that if one of these "enhanced bans" are put into place, that at least two people have looked at the "problem child", and only after more than one person has signed off on such a ban, does that go into effect. I don't care exactly what that process is, but I don't want to have to worry about pissing off a moderator and getting banned as a result.
We all get pissed off here -- it's part of any community. But "the nuclear option(s)" need(s) to be decided upon by someone with a cool head, not someone who's pissed off.