[poop MANIAC(fecal frenzy!!!!!!!!]

-cut-
With greater time increments between posts I feel that introspection and discussion on a ban in question will be stifled, and lessons learned may be lessons lost to time and forgotten, bereft of the mental reinforcement from careful study and consideration, and so there should be a process by which these cooldowns may be formally contested. -cut-

-cut-

It's not a problem with the community, I am simply proposing a procedure which would allow players who feel they haven't had a fair shake contend the decision, and for further elaboration on a denied request to be submitted.

OK, I see. The main problem with that is that kind of detracts from the idea that it's a community votes oaths kind of stuff. Look at the rice bowls/azunaricewhatever forgot their name. The community didn't want her back and in the replies you can tell they got discouraged by not receiving a fair shake. The community may not seem fair but the community votes on what they think is right. If it's more of something that can be handled with staff, take for instance someone doing something that one person in the community didn't like and got banned for it I could see that. But this seems kinda niche for some protocol to be in place.

That's fair. Being in a position where I find that I'm in need of just such a protocol myself I may be biased toward a system which may have lower demand than I realize; However, I fail to see the harm in allowing such a process to be formalized, as I believe it will serve to make the bureaucracy more adaptable.