Specifics:
Teh escalating punishment scale would "reverse" or "reset" for minor infractions after 6 months of honorable behavior (maybe 3 months for the most minor infractions).
This would be for MINOR infractions only (definition of "minor" can be debated later). Cheating, etc. would remain "as is".
If the issue repeats excessively, then a jury "of peers" (mods, regular posters, those involved, etc.) could be asked to decide if the person is a persistant "jerk" or someone who can "be reformed"/"is worthy of another shot". Admin could still override the jury if they have added information or feel that the jury is becoming too biased, etc.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Right now, someone can commit a series of minor infractions, learn their lesson, contribute heavily to the site and then 5 years later do something stupid (but minor -- maybe lose their temper a bit, misunderstand something, etc.) and wind up with a perma ban.
In addition, I suspect this heavy escalation leads a lot of, er, less mature individuals, to simply decide "I am going to be banned anyway, might as well make it BIG" -- be it "doing a wicked" or posting 100 idiot threads or ..? (don't want to give people ideas, now).
I think the effect of the punishments, the whole system would just work better if, in addition to the escalating penalties, there were also a method for reversing the stack. To keep this from becoming an endless cycle of "minor infraction... penalty.. erase... redo the infraction...etc" the record would stand. It could be recalled if the person seems to show a persistant and continual disregard for the rules. I realize this might cause a lot of work for admin and conflict, so that is why I propose a "jury" to ultimately decide if this is well, basically a good guy who steps out of bounds a bit, but within reason OR someone who could really harm the site. I know this would be subjective, but the jury would be those people who use the site. Admin would, of course, have the ultimate right to override the "jury", particularly because they may be privy to additional information, but also to act as a check on the possibility of juries becoming cliques.
