The system you describe would almost certainly be far more burdensome for mods than the current one, because almost every infraction would be likely to go through the full infraction/ban review rigmarole (which generally includes lengthy PM correspondence that can easily take multiple hours per incident), which is a relative rarity at the moment. I don't like the different speed limit analogy, because the point of the permanent point system, or different punishments, is not to apply a different standard to different users. It's to take into account infraction history in sentencing. If you have been caught speeding over 100 times in the past, there's a good chance you'll be imprisoned if caught again. If it's only your first offence, or if you've only been ticketed for low-range speeding a couple of times, it's just going to be a fine. Flexible sentencing options as opposed to mandatory minimums are quite helpful for moderators, and for users, the vast majority of whom are never subject to any actual punishment (i.e. a ban). It's worth clarifying that when a user on the permanent point program receives their final infraction, they are not being permanently banned for that one infraction. They are being permanently banned for the 18 permanent points that came before it, and for all the trouble caused before being placed on the program. Similarly, when someone hits the eight point threshold, they aren't being banned for the one point that got them there, but rather for the whole of their behaviour that was resulted in eight unexpired points. Changing to a system whereby infractions always carried bans would be a departure from this system, under which, again, the vast majority of members, including the vast majority of infracted users, are never subject to any actual punishment (i.e. a ban).