Perhaps it should be changed so that anyone with 30% and below can post in that particular forum. Allowing more access will generate more legitimate topics.

I second this.

Give more people the opportunity to contribute to the forum. Everyone makes mistakes for whatever reason they may be but 20% seems to be a little too low.

...as a long time contributor to the PaRD forum I would not like to see it changed .

If a person is not mature enough to refrain from innapropriate behavior once they hit the first 10% they are most likely not mature enough to be discussing religion and politics in the first place .

Then why not make it 0% as the max warn? Couldn't you make the argument that if you end up with a warn, you are too immature to discuss religion/politics?

One could make any argument they choose .

I believe the current restriction allows for the possibility of any one poster having a bad day and stepping over the line while still remaining able to post on the forum to prove the lesson learned .

I think it is appropriate how it is. Warns usually last 20-30ish days and are removed when the rules are being followed.

In order to get 2 warns its shows that a person is developing a pattern of disregarding the rules and doing so in a relatively short period of time.

People usually get warned for breaking a rule in the area that they often frequent so a good incentive for a PARD poster to learn how to debate without breaking the rules is to give them a month or so off from posting there, giving them time to reevaluate how they conduct themselves on the site.

Warns aren't removed after 30 days, or 60, or 90, etc. Case in point is AiNedeSpelCzech, who has failed to get his warn lowered, despite waiting the required time, only to be denied and denied.