Why not a warning?

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

A ban will never be better than a warning.
In no situation has putting someone directly into jail without a trial ever been considered fair.
Strikes should always add up to bans.

To me, this is pure brute force.
The ToS' grey areas are grey probably for the pure fact that SE and the GMs can interpret it and the punishment as they see fit.

Also, if an area is grey and not strictly defined and up for interpretation on the producer's part but not for the consumer - then the punishment of being banned for a service you are paying for (which again has no clearly defined rules and also has a social rule that is "don't ask don't tell") is completely unfair especially moreso if the account has never had a strike. We blame a consumer for grey interpretation that is the fault of the producer ? The rules are grey for a reason.

It's a 10 day suspension. Aka strike 1.

[VirusOnline]

It's a 10 day suspension. Aka strike 1.

AFAIK it goes L1, L2, L3 -> Caution, Warning, then Suspension.
Even then suspension level 1 is only 3 days. 10 would skip straight up to a level 2 suspension without caution or warning.