Cerin, thanks for the link to the current state of the ballot!
Seeing that I'm absolutely opposed to punishing anyone before the crime has been committed, I find it hard to give a preference for any of these models, but will say that they both are more reasonable than I had hoped for.
That said, I think the first option is slightly preferable, as it is more in keeping with the transparency ideals of this board.
Even though, in the second option, five objections is quite a bit to collect, the process still is too much behind the scenes.
The first, I suppose, would allow for a discussion to go on in ToE? (Rather than just the vote.)
Still, I would wish for some provisions to enable the petitioner to defend him-/herself (if they are still interested in that after hearing about their possible rejection), especially in case the second option is chosen - and he or she should definitely know his or her accusers!
Also: is the decision up to a single Ranger? I think the decision on the validity of the objections (again, especially in case of the second option) should be made by at least a majority of Rangers.
Lastly, this on the whole isn't entirely clear to me:
If a Ranger receives a communication that a ToE member has had a RL experience of a seriously harmful nature with the petitioner, the veracity of which is supported by at least one other ToE member, the Ranger at their discretion may announce in the petitioner's thread in ToE that such a complaint has been brought and the petitioner has summarily been denied access. The petitioner will be informed that a serious complaint has been lodged and their access denied, and the thread will then be locked and deleted. If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be permanently banned.
If there is such a serious case, there should be a more detailed process than just two statements and one Ranger judging the veracity of those!
A hearing is mentioned in the end - does it mean that in case of such an accusation a hearing is obligatory? I think it would be a good idea if it were!
I like the provision to prevent spurious accusations, though!