I made this suggestion in another thread but it was locked immediately afterward so I'm not sure if anyone actually saw it. Strangely enough, the thread also disappeared from the forum. But back to what I was saying, my suggestion is in light of the recent complaining about inconsistency in the way moderating is handled and the likes about unfair or inconsistent bans.

A popular forum I posted on had one, that way overzealous mods could not go around banning people for whatever they want whenever they felt like it. Maybe a 3 (or 4) strikes system, when the mod adds a 3rd (or 4th?) infraction then the user is banned automatically depending on the 'value' of the infractions. Say, spamming would be 1 point, trolling 2 points, flaming 3 points? When the final infraction is placed, the points are 'added' up to decide how long a user is banned. 3-5 Points would = 5 days to a week, 5-8 points = 9 days to 2 weeks, and 10+ = 1 month or more? Consequently, this system could be reversed so that there is a certain limit of points that the user couldn't cross, and once they did they would be banned based on that, rather than 3-4 strikes. This way, the more troublesome the user and the more severe their infractions, the quicker they will be banned.

The infractions themselves would last based on the severity value. Something like a trolling infraction would last maybe 2 weeks, then it would be wiped. Something like flaming and insulting other users could last upwards to a month. The actual infractions would appear as nodes under the user's info, whether publicly displayed or privately for the user and the moderation staff on every reply. The infractions would be tied to the offending post, that way a moderator can see the offending post and a user wouldn't get penalized more than once for the same reply. There will still be the option for instant and permanent bans for troublesome accounts simply created to spam, post porn and the likes.

I know I haven't been here very long and don't have much credibility or a reputation tied to my name. It was just a suggestion. It would certainly remove a lot complaints about unwarranted, inconsistent bans when there is a progressive system the user is aware of. They can never fall back on claims that a ban was wrong or too harsh if they have knowledge of their status and how they were on their way to a ban to begin with. This would also clean up moderator mistakes such as banning a user too soon or over a misunderstanding because it wouldn't be a one-shot system. I hope this is a suggestion the moderation staff will at least take into account for a cleaner, more organized way of handling the forums.

1. Locked threads disappear from the forum.
2. Lets say this system was put in place and I'm a corrupt inconsistent mod out to get a certain kind of fanboy: what's keeping me from just giving someone 5 strikes when another mod would only give them 2 strikes?

 Well at least I'm an honest inconsistent corrupt mod. 

1. Well that's strange. It's only a step away from deleting the thread altogether.

2. Well the infractions are tied to the post and which mod gave it would be visible amongst the other mods. Perhaps like the bans, a short answer is given signed by a mod for why the infraction was given to the user. But for such abuse to happen, the mod would have to mark up several of that user's posts with no real reason and by then it should be pretty clear to the rest of the mods what is taking place. The ability to remove infractions prematurely would also be given to the mods in the case of a misunderstanding.

Another idea you just gave me relates to the banning process. When the user runs out of strikes, their accounts can maybe be sent into a limbo or purgatory where they lose the ability to make repleis and threads but aren't necessarily banned. From here they are added to a list where the mods can actually review their infractions and physically "Ok" the ban, starting their punishment. This would be able to save a user from said corrupt inconsistent mod out to get them because their account still has to be review as the final step before the ban.