With some reluctance, I feel compelled to institute a probation period for new members.
The new policy is that two warnings issued within the first month or ten posts will be grounds for banning at moderator discretion.
The reason admission is preceded by an email interview is to ascertain whether the candidate member is suitable, which depends on a number of criteria; it's part of the charter. Rejection is exceedingly rare. It is preferable to have liberal admission policy and give people an opportunity to show themselves by their action than to try to judge based on interview answers and past actions elsewhere. Turns out, not being a total ass is about all it takes to live here warning free for years.
On the other hand, the forum and longtime members should not have to suffer more than momentary disruption from new members who've signed up for no apparent purpose other than to disrupt or offend. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to officially allow for a wait-and-see period before affording a new member a normal warning track which applies to those having contributed positively for an extended time.
I think it's fair.* If you can squeeze out just 10 posts and make it a month without twice running afoul of rules, you're entitled to normal tier administrative operations. Such things are difficult to quantify, but it's necessary. The worst part of it is the implicit notion that going from 10 posts to 11 somehow changes everything. It's hard to make perfect rules.
There is still a moderator discretion clause, which is phrased in such a way as to allow leeway to keep a member rather than dispose of them. The default is to expect the worst if you can't hold yourself together for ten posts.
*issues of fairness can always be addressed in Administrative Issues.