Putting this here for some potential feedback although it does not concern these forums. I'm a moderator on a few forums elsewhere (some more busy than others) and on one we operate a progressive disciplinary system. So the first rule breach gets an informal warning about future behaviour, a second misdemeanour a formal warning, then a 1 day ban, 1 week ban, right up to permanent ban.
We have a forum regular who constantly steps only just outside of the forum rules. No amount of conversation with them or attempts at corrective action seem to be effective. But when we vote for them to enter one of the final stages (very long bans just before the deactivation stage) the vote pretty much always fails because people look at the small crime and the large punishment and can't mesh the two together in their heads.
Some (including me) are arguing that the two should be separate, and the votes should be cast solely on the basis of "was this post or series of posts a rule breach? If so whatever step they are at is irrelevant, they should move up a level."
Others are arguing that the long ban they could receive is a very harsh punishment for what is effectively a fairly minor/ambiguous rule breach.
Where would you ugly lot position yourselves in this sort of debate and why?
