"nothing more will happen to your account unless warnings accumulate..." -
dorado
"We add multiple sites a day to the list, gonna be a pain to keep 2 places up to date" -
POKI
Hopefully you can see where those two quotes can conflict with one another right? So since we don't know which sites are blacklisted, it is possible to accumulate additional warnings without intending to. Someone may have their account unjustly punished/banned simply because some mod added another warning to their account.
In my case, the content I added was in a gofile from a month ago. I did not post a link to a site that was similar to simpcity. I can almost see a justly warning if I posted a link directly to said site or, if it was a few days or a week, but A MONTH LATER? Some may see this as a rant, but I am just pointing out a flaw in your warning system. How far back can a mod go to bestow a warning? If someone was to be targeted by a rouge mod, it wouldn't be that hard to go through someone's posts and hit them with 3 or 4 warnings, and bam account banned.
Their should at the MINIMUM be an appeals process, for active members that are contributing in good faith. If not, then this will have a chilling effect on people who enjoy their time here but will be afraid to add content for fear of mod warnings. I know at the moment I feel that way. The "Learn your lesson and move on" -
dorado doesn't really inspire me to keep adding content to a community I first thought was friendly and inclusive.
So I guess without an appeals process or a way to dispute a claim (even my youtube account has an appeals process) I'll just slink back into the shadows and look but not add. Sad really because this is my preferred site to be active upon.
Thanks for listening,
Casey