@Bogard @TheAncientCenturion I will present an argument against what Lee suggested.
There is no need to do things differently, if we want to a better forum than any other forums. We need to do things rightly.
Banning system didn't bring OJ downfall but misuse of it did. System itself wasn't wrong but it's implementation was.
OJ had only 10 warning points system with too much leeway to mods which caused subjectivity and inconsistency in implementation. There was no accountability for wrong action taken by mods. Rules were twisted and bent.
WG had build on that and has 50 warning points with banning users getting started after a month of spending time in Udon and perma ban kicking in after you got 50 warning points.
If a user doesn't self reflect even after getting 50 warning points which is more than sufficient chance he/she got before perma ban then he deserve a perma ban. There has to be deterrence for users to not go overboard.
Also, what's needed is clear lay down of rules regarding how many warning points a user will get for violating a particular rule.
This could be couple with grievance redressal mechanism like a user who is about to get perma banned should get right to get heard by member of teams first and explain his act.
If this forum wants to embark upon new leadership then there is need to learn from the mistakes of past experience, correct them and implement them in right way.