Seems easier and clearer to just fix the rules and enforce them better.

What mod keeps shrinking my images in the Greatest Games 2017 thread? My images aren't any bigger than the ones used by anyone else. Somebody keeps going in and shrinking them down to the size of most peoples' avatars. Whoever is doing this needs to stop, and will be reported for troll modding if it continues.

Must be a script then. Not sure why it's targeting my images exclusively though. I'll PM Truckosaurus. 

Yeah, I keep going back, finding slightly smaller images and posting those. I think using the copy/paste method activates some script that auto-shrinks an image if the height or width go past a certain point. 

Late response, but I've been mulling this over.

Like you said, there are certain users who know the rules enough not to break any, but still do little outside of riling people up, starting arguments, or just doing whatever they can to create a toxic atmosphere. Just because a user isn't saying "fanboy" or "idiot" doesn't mean they are a valuable member here, and if someone's posting history is filled with toxic posts that are hurting actual discussion (as in..non-constructive contributions), then I would be a big proponent of removing these negative elements from the forum.  The ultimate goal of this place should be to create a fun place for people to talk about their hobbies or interests, and if a user's continued presence is hindering that, they should be looked at through the same lens as anyone breaking established rules.

At the end of the day, this is a forum, not a real life conversation, and so I see no issue removing users that are proving to be a detriment to the community. Of course, it should go without saying that this would be done on a case by case basis and would have multiple moderators weigh in to avoid bias (like currently), but I think it would be beneficial in the long run. If some users really can't help themselves, they'll always have Reddit or Youtube comments or what-have-you...but I think we can hold ourselves to a higher standard.

I usually dislike harsher ruling from the mods as it imposes restrictions to the forums, but if you stop and think about it, how would the state of the forum be like with removal of problematic offenders?

Most users would not be in this category as this would be for repeated offenders with obvious intentions of skirting around the rules and avoiding bans, while pulling others across the line. I think it would be fine for these users to be removed, as they know what they are doing and purposely avoid getting banned but are always at the boundary to annoy other users and keep the forum at a tension.However, this could easily sway into safety net for moderators to ban users they think are problematic, but the user actually isn't.

As long as transparency is there, I don't really see how this could end up on the slippery slope without red flags being raised. Permabans can't be done without approval from the team so if a moderator is going too far, they will obviously be pointed out by other mods or from the community. By specifically stating the reasons why or modifying the forum rules can prevent ambiguity or unfair permabans

I'm fairly certain that there's already several permabans that are arguable or the community might not agree with it and that's was with them "breaking rules". Who might be considered problematic or troublesome might be different for different people and there in lies the main issue with this. As the mod team changes because of people retiring and joining the team, it's collective judgement changes. It might have a different take on a situation that happened months ago. Even with the mod team requiring consensus on permabans, it's still flawed and sometimes a situation gets treated in a harsh way. I don't think it's easy to walk back some things.

Oh I know the perfect solution. Let's give the mods the ability to ban anyone as long as they agree with it regardless if the supposed "troublemaker" broke any rule or code of normal behavior in conversations. So if people complained enough, would that be "good enough" grounds to permaban someone if the mod team had enough of a consensus?

You're right, so it makes very little difference either way 

 A likely uptick in frequency of "arguable" instances is not something I would characterize as "making very little difference either way". 

Both. I might not be a troublesome person that they're talking about but I could be if the right people become a mod. With my way, we would have interesting conversations and people with thicker skin at least. People have wide ranging opinions on a multitude of topics and it leads to interesting conversations. That's how people relate to eachother. With the good comes the bad. Controversial opinions come with it and people should learn how to tolerate something or someone they don't like. I mean this is the internet and a forum. Most gaming forums are a shit show and this isn't. We don't need something so drastic when it's a issue to some.

Don't you have a bit of personal motivation when you push for stuff like this? How's that walled garden coming along? Wouldn't you just love to ban people ya don't like? That's what this more or less amounts to when you boil it down. Well, not you in this instance but some of the ones leaning on yay side. I don't care how one might try to dress it up but it's clearly what it is.