Why not use the Circles exclusively as a form of punishment?

Patrick Weekes has never done it with factions however. The closest was the Krogan or Salarian choice, but even that had middle grounds like the STG still helping if you side with the krogan. 

I disagree completely. As I said in another thread, just look at history and you'll see that notion that there is no such thing as a bloodless revolution is inaccurate. I also disagree that trying to appease both sides wouldn't result in anything. Gradual change is a very real thing we see it all the time and that's where things were going until individuals who thought it would only work with big actions got involved and messed everything up. If it wasn't for the events that kick off Inquisition, these big actions needed for change some mages used would have resulted in changes all right: those changes being things being far worse for the mages if any existed left at all. Again, using the metaphor earlier if you kill an elephant that will just result in the rest of the herd attacking you and the mouse. 

You can however end slavery without having to fight a war to do so. Plus the Circle system isn’t like slavery since there are reforms that would work. Even you have agreed with that.

By zealots I mean those who want nothing but the destruction of the other side. For example people like Adrian, Anders, Lambert, Meredith, etc. Most characters on both sides are open to alternatives thus aren’t zealots.

I’ve already shown you one example where it does exist and there are others. Sorry, you are objectively wrong.

Yes, the "Velvet Revolution" – I know. But you know, how many bloodsheds preluded this? 

I was talking about alternatives to war. The majority on both sides were open to compromises hence agreeing to the Conclave. Meanwhile characters like those I mentioned were not open to compromise and even acting against any possibility of compromise. That makes those people zealots, since a zealot is "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals". 

I know English isn't your first language, so can you please explain what you are trying to say here? Just asking since the word you used is not correct since nothing prevented it from happening because it happened. 

Again, I'm talking about alternatives to war.

Ah, okay. Reading the fix, that is irrelevant. Just because blood was shed in the past and may even inspire the present movement doesn't mean said present movement has to also shed blood. Also be careful using the past to justify present actions. That's a double-edged sword. 

Ah, so now the war wasn’t started by Anders? And you were so proud of that.
Freedom and war are not alternatives. War was a method and freedom the goal. There are other methods to reach that goal.

I’m not ignoring the antecedents. However that doesn’t mean that those have to determine how later events go. Just because America had to fight a full blown civil war to give black people more freedom does not mean that America would need to go into a full blown civil war to give black people more freedom for example. That’s how civilization evolves. Otherwise we’d still be fighting wars that started thousands of years ago.

Anders ignites a spark and started a revolution. But the WAR was started by the Seekers and the Templars, who weren't able to accept the mages' freedom. Instead of support that, they declared the war.

Perhaps, the civilization can learn – but it started somewhere. With bloodshed.

And you didn't answer: what the compromise about the slavery... how do you can respect both "sides"?

That's like saying one group didn't start a war when they attacked, it was the group they attacked who started the war because they attacked back. But anyway, I was just teasing you with that part hence the emoji so don't want to get into that discussion. 

Actually, civilization started by setting aside bloodshed. People realized things would be better for all of them if they worked together rather than fight each other.