Or just change their username to “Damocles”, and add a new smiley.
We could do that, but I doubt the trolls or socks or those hovering on the brink would get the joke. Remember, they’re too stupid to realize exactly what “Don’t be a jerk” means. 
I got $100 says that we ditch the ‘suspended’ title in all suspensions to ‘On Time Out’.
Hey, what can I say? I have a 1 year old and a 5 year old.
Thats a great idea, I second it.
Call me old-fashioned, but I’d rather see “Go To Your Room, Young Man/Lady!”
You have two kids and $100 disposable income?! Must be a millionaire! 
How does suspension relate to the old practice of allowing dopers that had been banned a second chance? As I understood it a banned doper could contact the powers that be and request a second chance. Part of this required an apology.
If a suspended doper gets reinstated and then gets banned will there still be a second chance given or is he like most banned dopers…gone forever? 
Well, I guess I wouldn’t think of this as a “second chance.” I’d say, more a sixth or seventh or eighth or twelfth chance. After all, there were usually plenny of warnings. So, at what point do you stop? The sixteenth chance? The twenty-third chance? Forty-second street?
Banning is still banning – it’s pretty much forever. We have, from time to time, allowed people back after a very long time has passed, and they’ve almost always blown it within a few weeks. I don’t think we have ever had a case of a banned person who was able to reform and come back. These tend to be behavioural traits that people don’t want to change.
So, we’ve just added an addition step in most cases – after N repeated warnings on the same offense and refusal to change behavior, we offer suspension as a way of grabbing people by the collar and saying “Dammit, we’re serious, this means you, shape up or ship out!” If they aint able to shape up after that kind of warning, what more d’you think we should do?
You’re doing fine. Thousands of members, a couple of complaints. Don’t sweat it.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I was worried about it. But thanks, Lib
Didn’t someone mention that a poster named Contestant #3 came back and behaved. But they left for good after that?
Yup, that does seem to be an outlier. AFAIK, Krispy Original was still in good standing at subscription time. But that was before the single user name rule was established, and he did a tremendous job of redeeming his reputation.
I like the suspension category. Who knows, but we could develop a probation category as well as a prelude to suspension. Just joking. Joking is ok on this forum isn’t it?
I don’t know when Krispy Original left for good, but the single user name rule predates subscriptions by several years, at least.
The only Doper of whom I’m aware that was banned, allowed back in, and hasn’t yet been re-banned (and is still a paying member!) is Whammo.
That’s only one, though, out of too many.
Darn.
I was hoping that instead of Suspended, it would read Double-Secret Probation.
That’s too bad.
I don’t want to say “the way we do things on the board I run is how things should be done on the SDMB”, but banned posters (not those that were suspended for a day or two for certain rule violations) that were readmitted have generally been good citizens after they came back.
Then again, my site spealizes in a certain subject area, there are no other equivalent message boards online; there’s more to lose with a banning. A banned Doper has options; the SDMB spinoff baords (FFF, etc), Something Awful Forums, Off-Topic, or any number of general discussion sites.
Has there been any thought given towards using vBulletin’s temporary ban feature more, where wristslaps hurt harder by having posting privileges suspended for day or week? I’ve probably done a few things in the past to warrant a one day suspension, and it’s something I’d remember more than just a warning.
Uhh, I mean increased use of short-term suspensions.
I can see where having one-day or one-week suspensions could get confusing, not to mention nitpicky annoying for Jerry or whoever winds up having to set them up and keep track of them. Still, it might be worth experimenting with further refinements, as cases come up offering opportunities.
I’m all for a flexible-within-reason system that brooms out the trolls and recidivists but hangs on to as many members as possible (even the ones I can’t stand), as long as they learn to color within the lines.
Though I will still feel free to bitch about their artistic merits.
Well, we currently have a system in place where a member receives multiple warnings, a suspension (which is fairly new as being implemented on a regular basis–although it had been used, rarely, in the past) and, finally, a banning. By the time the ban hits, the poster has shown us that he/she does not intend (or is just incapable at this time and date) to play well with others. If the poster has received all those other warnings, and if the poster has failed to change his/her actions, then I’m not seeing where yet another step would change anything.
None of which is to say that your idea, elmwood, is unreasonable, but I think it works best on a smaller board–as is evidenced by what you said about your place. Plus, we don’t really want to get into the habit of adding more and more steps to the process to where every step leading to a banning becomes meaningless. Water it down too much and the offenders will just brush off the warnings and fail to change anything.