I personally believe that bans should be based not just on the number of warnings, but also the frequency of violations. For example, a while back you granted 'amnesty' in the sense that people had their warning totals cleared. I personally thought that was a good move, and believe that warnings over a year old should be cleared. In other words, people get three warnings per year. Furthermore, once banned, I believe that the ban should have an expiration date, for example, 6 months, one year, or other.
Using a system like the one described above would get rid of the chronic and serious troublemakers and at the same time acknowledge that we all make mistakes in the heat of the moment. Now I don't know if devia is a habitual rule violator but I must say that I appreciate her input here - she keeps us honest and avoids the 'echo chamber' phenomenon seen so often at the forums of our opponents.
So, to add my vote, I vote no ban if any of her other warnings were over a year old, and support a 6-week ban if she had three in the last year. I believe that the majority of us responding here want to have her around, including me. However, I also believe that we need to hold ourselves to standards of decorum, and bans are an integral part of that process.
