Actually, we monitor within 90 days. In other words, accrew 3 warnings within 90 days, then we do the banning. Time to sound like an old man, but... Back in my day, warnings were only meaningful on paper. They were basically cautions, and after a random number of them you were banished for a random period. The idea is that if you really only fly off the handle every once in a while, you probably aren't that big of a problem to begin with. If you cause a great number of issues, then we get rid of you for a long while. We also have cautions which are pretty much just gentle nudges. The system assumes good faith, and when people start acting in bad faith, we have community failure. It also works for things that aren't exactly rules, but really, you should no better. As used in that very topic, actually.

If you're the kind of person who tends to post things that get warnings, but are careful enough to back off when you think you might be getting close to the edge, that will become obvious sooner or later. That's when the community failure clause would kick in, and you would catch a ban for something that you would have otherwise just been given a warning for. At least, I assume that's how that would work.

@5, I kinda agree, but enforcing that could pruve to be quite tough given the number of mods, and that this would have to be probably on a case by case basis, and that we'd probably need more people to step up as mods for this to work as intended.

@2, sorry the 90 day thing was a bit of a brain fart.
I think I need to clarify, though, because I don't think I've explained myself very well.
How many times have you seen a user say "I'm going to get a warning for this, but", and continue to do the thing they're going to get a waring for? it's quite common. People do it because as long as you're not doing it super frequently, more than once every three months, there are no consiquences for it. Granny got away with that stuff for years, and so have many others. I don't think these people should be banned permenently, but I also don't think a warning is much of a warning if the person getting the warning is perfectly aware they've broken the rules. It isn't warning them of anything. It is also not how any online community other than this one is run. I don't even think people should get a first warning. If you break any rule, you get a day long ban. each subsequent violation gets you a longer ban until it becomes permanent. Losing access to the forums for a day isn't much of a punishment, but it is a tangible thing and forces you to consider why you were banned.
The community failure clause should be a last ditch solution, not the default way of banning people.

Fundamentally, people only follow the rules if there are consequences. presumably if someone is posting here, they would like to be able to continue posting here. the current rules allow you to go off the handle once every 6 months and keep that right with no interruptions, until eventually you get community failured. This is an innefficient system.
As for people exploding? Let them. They're perfectly allowed to lose their shit over being banned. and if they'd like it to stop happening to them, they'll start following the rules. Otherwise, they'll be gone much quicker and everyone else can go back to discussing audio games.
You're also wrong about the justice system. No one says I'll go to prison for this and does it anyways unless there are a lot of external factors at play (mental illness, extreme revenge, ETC). On the internet, it's just a hyperbolic thing people say. It doesn't fit with their real world actions because there are, in fact, consiquences for going to prison.
I'm also curious to know what you think is worth preserving about the current culture of moderation on this forum. It is, objectively, a much more toxic place than it was 5 years ago. Personally, I think that's because the rules of this website, in a lot of ways, aren't representative of how the average online community is run, with warnings being the biggest offender. Perhaps it's worth changing how things are done and dealing with the temporary explosion.