Oh, I see. You're interested in having an argument about the semantics of a straight forward sentence.
>"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference."
Not much to "interpret" there. I've been wrong before, but I'll bet he meant exactly what he said; this individual should have been removed from the conference immediately. That's all well and good for a discussion on an internet message board, but in reality it could be extremely harmful to reputations, both of the accused and the conference.
Now, if jnoller meant what you are implying he meant, he could have easily written:
the conference organizers should not have blinked before [taking action/investigating/speaking with/questioning etc] the [accused] party.
or even:
the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty.
And that's something I could support. I think the conference representative's reaction to such a major accusation was reprehensible. But that isn't what he wrote. And I really don't think that's what he meant, either. Note the language. Responsible? At what point was that determined?
And by the way: jumping to conclusions about a sexual harassment charge is dangerous, and not at all analogous to doing the same with regards to a sentence on HackerNews.