I don't think anyone is ranting. The amount of evidence available to mods to make bans is sometimes inadequate to make an irrefutable decision. Greg realizes this. To admit infallibility, even when exercising the utmost care and prudence when making an initial ban, is to be irresponsible at the same time. I don't think Greg makes bans with the intention of lifting them ahead of time. I DO think that he is reasonable enough to admit he can be wrong, given the circumstances a mod must work under.
There is a trade-off between making the right ban EVERY time, and taking a small amount of chance in bans, and eliminating more hackers. I can say that I think some chance must be taken, as the evidence is not enough to be absolutely sure all the time. If I was completely positive about every ban, given the amount of info I am able to obtain for every ban, I would have trouble seeing nothing wrong with my reasoning. The fact is, you just CANNOT be absolutely positive about every ban. This is why we exercise self doubt and prudence, before, during and AFTER the ban.
I think it is the right decision to allow people who are banned to challenge their ban. Given the amount of evidence they are able to produce in most cases, it is no surprise why hardly any are lifted. In this case, Greg judged that his ban may have been made in error. So what? Isn't that what we want? Mods are GOING to make mistakes. We want them to be able to easily right the wrongs as quickly and easily as possible. I see no problem here.