I was a founding member of the egcs steering committee. When we were creating the rules, we had a debate over whether we should have a specific list of offense

I was a founding member of the egcs steering committee. When we were creating the rules, we had a debate over whether we should have a specific list of offenses that would allow us to ban someone: some wanted a specific list, others just wanted a supermajority to vote the person out. We settled on a 3/4 vote of steering committee members. I wrote the justification, saying that we shouldn't be stuck if someone came up with a new and creative way to cause damage. And sure enough, we only banned one person ever. We banned him because he made a series of scary threats against the release manager, including "I know where you live", but these threats were made off-list, it was a campaign of personal harassment because no one wanted this idiot's patches. Suppose we had forgotten to include threats of violence off-list in our expected set of rules? And remember, we were talking about our mailing lists, which are forums according to section 230. So, would we lose our section 230 protections under your proposal?