This was posted as a response in another thread in suggestions:
I see a few problems here.
The more serious infractions never expire. Fine. But the less serious or even fairly trivial infractions all have a 1 year expiration. This lack of distinction or granularity among the infractions needs correction.
Why? And in what way does it need to be "corrected"?
I believe the mentality described in the quote above differentiating between not counting expired infractions for temporary bans, but counting expired infractions
for permanent bans is one of the main problems with dishing out some of the permabans.
The two bolded statements in the quote above regarding the less serious infractions that do have an expiration are essentially contradictory, in one case it's unfair to keep holding them accountable as time passes, and the other case, a declaration that the user isn't improving if he still gets them and is therefore deserving of a permaban.
There is no contradiction. You have to remember that it's not o.k. to break forum rules, and that we don't owe it to members to allow them to continue to break the rules. Yet, to be lenient, we allow someone to get away with slipping up, even if they have slipped up multiple times before, so long as there has been a period when their behaviour has improved. However, there has to be a point when we say enough is enough. Despite multiple chances, warnings, and short bans, this person continues to break the rules. It's no longer worth it to allow them to continue to attack other members and disrupt the forum with the hope that maybe someday they will learn from their past mistakes and start to behave.
If I'm x user with 5 years of posts and say 14,000 posts accumulated 14 (.01%) posts resulting in various types of minor infractions, let's say 7 of them in the first year, another 3 in the next year, and 2 the next year, and 2 in the 4th year, for a total of 14, then in my fifth year, I get one minor offense for a forum disruption, this means I should be permabanned? If the infractions has properly expired, even with the stated 1 year exp., in my fifth year, I would only have a maximum of 3 minor infractions on my record.
No one is automatically banned after 15 infractions. Nor does it mean that having 15 infractions alone is enough for a permanent ban. A decision to permanently ban someone is not taken lightly. It involves assessing the person's history as a whole, and having a discussion with all or most of the mods about the user before any decision is made. Sometimes (e.g. in CF's case), the user is even warned via p.m. that their next infraction could result in a permanent ban. So it's not as arbitrary as you have described it.
Nor is it accurate or relevant to say that only 15 posts out of X number account for the entire reason this person is banned. It's irrelevant just as someone's argument at trial that out of the 1 million people they interacted with, they only murdered 1, and it would be unfair for them to be put in captivity for the rest of their natural life because of what accounts for 0.0001% their interactions with other people. Unfortunately that specific act, like those specific posts, do matter.
It is inaccurate because the mods do not infract every problematic post. Often times problematic posts are deleted. If a person is considered for a permanent ban, it's not because they have reached an arbitrary number of infractions, but it's because their entire history on MTF makes them unsuitable to continue to be a member.
Second, expiration period, should be more finely tuned to fit each offense. The severity of these offenses needs review. An accusation (not suspicion or speculation) of doping or match fixing could be regarded as libel. Whereas Forum disruption?
We judge severity based on practical considerations. So whereas libel is a serious concern, the forum has suffered much more from forum disruptions than from law suits. It has to be a practical consideration framed in the everyday realities of the forum.
So first, expired infractions are just that. They are wiped out, period. Expiration is expiration. Like points disappearing on my license after x time. Gone.
Third, accumulation of total non-expired, non-serious offenses should never result in a permaban, which many believe should be reserved for only the most serious potentially harmful infractions.
Fourth, accumulation of individual non-expired, non-serious offenses should result in a maximum ban for that particular non-serious offense, that's it.
The suggestions in bold will be taken into consideration. But note that as of now you haven't given us any compelling reasons, at least in this thread, for why they should be implemented.