Might be worthwhile to indicate what rights exist for the social club that have nothing to do with the service. For instance, they might have the right to send maybe one or two messages to members who have not specifically blocked them, if only to pass on another email address or forum where they can continue to stay in contact. One reason people resent IP block measures, even if they don't actually care any more about the issue, is that they are cut off from any ability to respond to questions they've been asked, or continue any relationships they have, and this just has the effect of making them look flaky or even more rude. That is of course not their fault, as they no longer have power to respond. So maybe agreeing to the social club's idea of civility is one way to guarantee that social access continues even if someone is just not paying attention to, or damaging to, the actual political or economic mission?
After all, when someone is fired, we don't force all their colleagues to stop going to lunch with them. But if someone has used a pseudonym or engaged in an ambiguous discourse, it may be hard to know you are going to lunch with the same person you had a relationship with. So that ambiguity also plays against people just leaving to do something else - or taking others who might even be on their side, with them. All this tends to give sysops way too much power... they can abuse authority like crazy, and people will stay due to inertia and the uncertainty of who they're following to go do something else. This is an under-explored problem in identity...
What's clear is, the cheerleaders and the student council aren't the same folks, and shouldn't be selected by the same method.
Also see Metaweb social club which has a more elaborated discussion and analogies.