AHEM *COUGH* Back to the topic please. It would be quite ironic if you got warnings from a fight in a thread about the warnings system.

I'm not going to say anything about Tublear's and Conker's cases, since I'm not following every single topic in which people get (sub)warnings. I'll leave that to the admins/mods, who in my opinion have been doing a rather good job over the years. I think warnings shouldn't be erased, but the time between them should perhaps taken into consideration when deciding on a ban. By this I mean very old warnings (2+ years or so), for mild offences (not things such as racism or violent PAs, or obvious warez linking). And the person's record for the period between that old warning and his more recent ones should be clean (so not getting a warning every three months, in the hope that the older ones will just be erased).

Which is a lot of rubbish to just say: it really varies from case to case. One should take into account what the old warning and the recent ones were for. But eventually, it's really up to the admins. Those who own (and, mind you: pay for) the forums have the right to appoint people they trust as admins/mods. From what I could tell, these people are not monsters who hand out warnings for fun. Seems to me that they are trying to be as unbiased as possible (which may never be 100% unbiased, but hey, if you want that, get a computer to moderate the forums =P), and using their best judgement when handing out warnings.