I'm concerned that the griefing policies are 'situational' and that banning is not necessarily going to be something that is deemed in violation of the TOS. ie. it will be a subjective decision.
Primary to my concern is the concept of limted resources and territorial control.
Scenario 1: My Giant JUnk Pile.
- at launch my tribe gets its preferred spot...in the vicinity is a fairly glorious pile or three of junk. Our junk. Becaue of the relative scarcity of trash, and hte fact that it depletes, we decide this is our trash and our trash alone. All interlopers will be dealth with severely. We even post this in a tribe profile in the section below: Come into our self proclaimed area of influence and expect to me met with a high level of hostility.
So in comes the pacificist crafter. we explain to him our territorial policy and advise him to leave. he gives us the bird and says he can do what he wants. We kill him. He comes back. We kill him again. He keeps coming back...eventually we kill him 20-30 times because he is just plain hard headed. Well, he reports us for griefing. Question: are we tagged as griefers and banned for merely enforcing a territorial claim?
Scenario 2: I want your Junk.
So we've depleted our giant junk pile...but alas, no fear, we've spotted another one. So our merry band tromps over there to start a harvestin. We are met with a chilly gaze and a carebear stare! Carebear stare counter: axe between the eyes. So, we go about scroungin'. Alas, our fearless defender and his band of noobs, keep coming at us, attempting to kick us off their junk. Of course we don't let them kick us off and we kill them. Quite a few times. Question: are we tagged as griefers and banned for 'invading' someone elses territory to take their trash?
In both these scenarios, note that the person(s) dying, have a choice...they are choosing to walk into a scenario where they know they are going to meet hostile action and mostly die. What burden does the individual player have avoid being 'griefed'?