First off, an account warning is a warning, not a ban. Your second doesn't get a ban, either. Nor does your third. What gets a ban are specific extreme circumstances. Not this.
Second, the Craigslist and Ebay thing has always been a grey area on how you should format it. My above post clears up that grey area. You won't be warned for something you did last week. But now that it's been posted, you will be warned if you make the mistake in the future. Again, it's just a warning, but it lets us see if the same people are repeating the same mistakes, so we can decide how we want to deal with them in the future.
Finally, locking a thread is not a very strong deterrent, but we may choose to only lock the thread. However, the delete option is there, because we feel that MANY of the situations where the OP failed to use the format were with REGULARS on here, not new members. Because of this, I left the delete option available to moderators, so that we can take a much stronger reaction to those we feel "should know better".
I have had situations where the person was warned, and five minutes later they did the same thing, was warned again, and five minutes more, did yet the same thing a third time. Deletion adds a stronger deterrent. Again, it's at the moderator's discretion whether it's locked or deleted altogether. All of us on the team are smart enough to figure out what's needed per situation. Some of us are a little more strict than others, but we are a team, and the basic guidelines we run by are, for the most part, followed by all of us. As the forum currents change, so do our guidelines, but we always keep tabs on things in our section. As with all things, everything is discussed. This subject is no exception.
And before anyone asks, I set the guidelines. It's not up for public discussion or debate. I do not need to subject my team to the approval of the forum as a whole. I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a democracy. There are no "rights" here. Access to Club-S12 forums is a privilege, not a right. That being said, we try to make it as comfortable an environment as possible, while still maintaining rules and keeping a certain format that makes information easy to obtain and communication smoother. We don't allow flame wars, and we don't allow sketchy for sale postings (note that BOTH of those are rampant problems on nico and other forums). We weed out spam on a daily basis. We are constantly revising and clearing up sections to make reading information easier for everyone. Like Tim and Travis, and Dan Aho before them, I and Colin, and the rest of the Moderator Team, do what we have to do to make this place a solid, effective source of information, and a fun environment, without leaving it to total anarchy and chaos.
In the past, this has been under challenge by specific people, and unfortunately it would seem they preferred the idea of no restrictions. In my opinion they were naive in believing that totally unrestricted activity was wise. In the past, when we've held back on our moderation, things have ALWAYS gotten out of hand. I've been here since day one, and can attest to this personally. Unfortunately, some of these individuals have been unable (unwilling?) to yield their stubborn naivety about this, and it has meant that a few of them have left active involvement on here -- or in one case, have been banned. That was the case with Henry/Asparagus. I normally wouldn't disclose the details of something like that, but under the circumstances, I feel like I need to show some of you the reasons why things are the way they are, so that the questions can cease in this regards. He was unwilling to accept the fact that there are rules pertaining to respect of others, and unwilling to even discuss it with the staff. Multiple staff members besides myself made many attempts to work things out, and prior to the final issues, I myself spent a number of times trying to discuss things with him both online and offline (yes, I've spoken to him on voice a number of times). The bottom line is if someone is not here, it's because they CHOSE to not to be -- either because they decided they were unhappy with rules, and stepped away, or because they continued to be hostile, in the face of the fact that doing so would surely result in their indefinite suspension or even expulsion.
I hope this clears things up, but as it is, this is how it is, and how it will be. It's not up for debate, but I am more than willing to clarify points as the need arises.