I said
most of what I had to say on this topic back in 2005. IOW, the closer the Rangers come to authoritative decisionmaking that averts dramatic meltdowns ("dramapocalypses," as a friend of mine says), the better. Hearings, committees, meta-hearings, temporary rangers ... unnecessary, a waste of holiday goodwill and cheer that should be accumulating this time of year, a waste of talented people's time ... and likely to equal, yet again, a loss of fun on this board.
Here, two members have a persistent (years-long) history of conflict with each other. They're asked to stop engaging with each other directly (many times, nicely, by Rangers and by posters). They don't, the situation reaches a boiling point and all the Rangers agree with the decision to impose a week-long ban on both of them. There is no renegate Ranger here who exceeded his/her authority in a way that even two other Rangers agree is inappropriate (in fact, not even two other MEMBERS have come come forward to complain that the Rangers acted inappropriately ... heck, not even both of the suspended posters agree on that point, seemingly.) None of the Rangers responsible for the decision will be around for more than a couple more months in that role. The disciplined members can actually volunteer to serve as Rangers in the future and be responsible for making the same sort of judgment calls. "Abuse of power" sounds like hyperbole when applied to a small messageboard in the first place -- more so given the previous two sentences.
Even if the Rangers are unreasonable, tyrannical, megalomaniacal, arrogant, absurd, unfair, egotistical maniacs who must be stopped
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
... at the end of the day, all that happened is they decided that two people (who had access to multiple other boards where they could talk to each other and everyone else, FWIW) didn't get to post here for a week.
Perspective check.