Re: How long does this warning stay on the account profile?
I mean, yeah, and I figured you'd say that [1], but, that's not really the point I'm trying to make: what I'm saying is that there should be a way (I don't know exactly what that way would be) for each group to feel just as at home and welcome as the other (I mean, right now, one group feels more-or-less completely at home, while the other group feels like they have to be really careful about what they say or do). Using myself as an example, there are a few Bitcoin-related services that I'd probably attempt myself, but not in the current environment... I know myself, and I know that I just don't have the temperament to politely deal with people that figure that they have the right to ask me all kinds of (leading) questions and then tag me when they don't like or agree with the answers I give them: I can't see myself not eventually picking up a bunch of DT-tags and getting frustrated and leaving if I just do what comes naturally to me in those situations and I tell those kinds of people to fuck off.
So, really what interests me about this kind of bifurcated user base idea, is making this particular ideological battleground less asymmetric: right now, one side can (and routinely does) harm and stifle/frustrate the proceedings of the other. I'm not that interested necessarily in being able to return the favor, I'm more interested in finding an effective way to (globally) nerf the over-strong side...
Something like, if I could point-in-time migrate to the no-police side of the forum (as in, my new topics and replies would then only ever appear there), then, why would the pro-police side even need the ability to leave me additional feedback past that point: it's not like it could potentially "save" anyone from anything, because guests can't see trust, and the only members affected by what I post from that point onward would be people that also can't see trust.
(Seriously, I considered editing the post after I made it, but there's only so much energy I can muster for framing everything in a way that leaves absolutely no low-hanging fruit to pick.)
[1] Please don't take this the wrong way, because I do enjoy interacting with you, but here's something to think about: I often find your responses to ideas to be more from the strawman side of the spectrum than the steelman side (as in, you often seem, maybe because you don't have time for the alternative, to want to take advantage of the fact that it's easier to break an argument down or to just quickly say one or two "clever" things than it is to carefully look at something under the most flattering light, patch its flaws, and then try to build it up).
So, really what interests me about this kind of bifurcated user base idea, is making this particular ideological battleground less asymmetric: right now, one side can (and routinely does) harm and stifle/frustrate the proceedings of the other. I'm not that interested necessarily in being able to return the favor, I'm more interested in finding an effective way to (globally) nerf the over-strong side...
Something like, if I could point-in-time migrate to the no-police side of the forum (as in, my new topics and replies would then only ever appear there), then, why would the pro-police side even need the ability to leave me additional feedback past that point: it's not like it could potentially "save" anyone from anything, because guests can't see trust, and the only members affected by what I post from that point onward would be people that also can't see trust.
I'd use a different account to read your topics 
I mean, yeah, and I figured you'd say that, too. (Seriously, I considered editing the post after I made it, but there's only so much energy I can muster for framing everything in a way that leaves absolutely no low-hanging fruit to pick.)Scammers are going to love it!
That's an unavoidable consequence of freedom-maximization, and you could say essentially the same thing about Bitcoin itself: Scammers love it! [1] Please don't take this the wrong way, because I do enjoy interacting with you, but here's something to think about: I often find your responses to ideas to be more from the strawman side of the spectrum than the steelman side (as in, you often seem, maybe because you don't have time for the alternative, to want to take advantage of the fact that it's easier to break an argument down or to just quickly say one or two "clever" things than it is to carefully look at something under the most flattering light, patch its flaws, and then try to build it up).