Why not a warning?

[Xiu_Ye]

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.

I can't tell if youre agreeing with or disagreeing with me.

I believe the rules to be grey because of the way they historically enforced them. It just seems steep to ramp up suddenly to 10 day bans on accounts that have had no GM interaction at all. (For this type of infraction. It's not like the pvp cheaters, gathering botters, etc.)

[VirusOnline]

I can't tell if youre agreeing with or disagreeing with me.

I believe the rules to be grey because of the way they historically enforced them. It just seems steep to ramp up suddenly to 10 day bans on accounts that have had no GM interaction at all. (For this type of infraction. It's not like the pvp cheaters, gathering botters, etc.)

Read my first 3 sentences