Flackers, I'll give you an example.
JimDoe knows that his warnings expire every 7 days, so every 14 days or so, he goes off on one. It's not quite like clockwork, but after he does this seven or eight times in a five-month space, you can be pretty sure that he's skirting around the rules in full knowledge of what he's doing. Community failure would then be cited, because JimDoe will have had far more warnings overall than is needed for a ban. Cases like that are why a community failure clause has to be in effect; we need a way to deal with situations like that. It should be noted that community failure must, as has been clearly stated, be supported by multiple people, and cannot be used in order to ride someone we may not personally like out of town. It just...won't work that way.
Now, either you believe we're going to be accountable or you don't. General you here, to anyone reading. We can't make you choose one way or the other. But all I can say at this point is that we're taking everything into consideration and doing everything we can here.
Aaron, the reason it's called community failure is because it's about failing the community. Communities need rules, and rules are placed there to protect and guide the community. If you dance around them or otherwise prove yourself a huge detriment to the community, you have failed it and should face the music.
Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1