So, through my lengthy research, ie being banned a few, well, a number of times, it seems that the accepted policy is to double the previous ban, with ban one being twenty-four hours. Has this policy ever been reviewed? I ask because I think a case by case - within certain guidelines - review may be more appropriate. It's similar to a few years ago when AmazingB was a moderator and then ex-moderator. He was always a huge proponent of modding on the post level, rather than the thread level. This seems to be much more the case now, to great affect, to the benefit of the forum as a whole. So why not something similar for ban lengths? If all I'm doing is calling people idiots, by all means, extend the ban length. If I post gratuitous pics, make it longer. But, right now, I could perform a few minor infractions, work my way up to a month long ban. Come back, keep it clean for a year, call someone an idiot and get a two month ban. It just doesn't seem particularly balanced or fair to me. Can a discussion just be had? If I'm to be shot down like Tunick, so be it.