Why do you think this would be a moderatable offence?

10yrs ago it wouldnt have been.

I've been banned for saying certain things (that tbf have been overturned) because it was seen as trolling Sony/MS when I honestly wasn't. Eg Streaming isn't gonna do shit, no matter who does it.

I know the word 'doomed' has traditionally only been associated with a certain company but going forward I'll be using it for other companies. Same applies to the 'go 3rd party' line. I want the same treatment those users had.

I didn't realize ResilientFighter was on the bubble. We didn't talk much at all, but too bad it didn't work out. If you see this RF, good luck to you.
@Bill. So you're going to run around saying PS is doomed, and should go third party as often as possible? :) Okeee.

I would never say Sony should go third party. Apple, Google and Nintendo aren't doomed but that's because successful companies don't waste time fighting battles that have already been lost.

Sony might beat MS next gen or they might not. It'll be a hollow victory for whoever wins.

I can't speak for the mods here, but whenever I want to say something which might ruffle feathers then just consider explaining why in your posts, if you see posts in a thread about a certain game for example... if posts say "this looks like a pile of shit, no one will buy this" they risk moderation, but if someone actually bothers to write why something looks like a pile of shit then they at least open the window to debate about the subject which is what this forum is all about rather than to just shit on the thread and the subject matter with negativity which doesn't encourage others to reply in a positive light as it would seem silly under a post which was 100% negative and including the fact that people who thought otherwise were factually incorrect.

Explain your posts and unless your post is ban worthy regardless then you should at least avoid some moderation or at least get a warning instead of a day in the sin bin.

Would that not remove the incentive to improve one's self if there is no redemption?

edit...I read this wrong.  I read it as removing the user from the site, not the past infractions.  Ignore my question. 

You forgot the "I don't like the idea, except for when it applies to me" poll option.

No, that's what a history is for.

If the one time offense is minor and from a long time ago, that shouldn't be taken into account for future progressive bans anyways.
If a user needs a new warning to remind them for a similar offense from 4 years ago, then they should get a new warning. The result would be the same regardless if said user had a warning in their history or not.

The history gives context. If you can pick and choose which infractions are considered for removal, that can open a new can of worms

What are the benefits of removing moderations from a user's history? People have voted for it in the poll, but no one has written a post supporting it yet.

Im not 100% how the moderation process works but say you joined in 2008 and were a bit of a trouble maker and had over a dozen moderations in the first year then you went 9 years without a moderation but had a bad day and crossed the line getting moderated. Would those moderations from nearly a decade ago affect the ban length?

It's like speeding tickets, I believe they stay on your record for 3-5 years depending on the state so a  couple speeding tickets in 2011 arent going to make your punishment more severe if you get one in 2019.