I feel like there's some misunderstanding to the timeline for these rules.
We have been giving suspensions to players for misconduct based on rules that existed in the section. For clarity, we decided to draw up a list of rules to make it easier for players to reference so that they would not be blindsided by a suspension. While most of the rules should be self evident, there were still complaints and instances of "but it doesn't say that in the rules".
Drunk Mafia was an absolute mess. It felt like having to babysit some people. There was obscenely personal attacks used, claiming as a strategy being discussed and then implemented later, people forgetting that omgus posts are to remain a neutral force, and people actively attempting to throw the game. I do not think some of you understand the level of shit game hosts have to put up with at times, and unfortunately, Faint was made very aware of this. I only hope he will continue to host games as I thought he did a great job for his first time but I would also not blame him if he was dissuaded by the actions of people playing.
Following from Drunk Mafia, I discussed the suspension of multiple players with the other Mafioso. I raised the issue of not being sure whether to provide them a suspension or just talk to them about it. I was edging towards suspension because the section has been getting progressively worse in terms of people showing any amount of self control. This is when the idea was put forward to use warnings. It coincided with the rulings being redone and allowed for us to reevaluate the punishment imposed on those we were already going to suspend.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that we released the rules first and then followed up with the game punishments after that people are questioning the order? Let me ensure you, those that are currently sitting on a warning or a suspension were to be in that position regardless of the new system.
Some of those that have warning points are individuals that usually show some level of restraint and we accept may have simply had a lapse of judgment. Others have shown some restraint after being contacted by a member of the Mafioso.
Those on a suspension have shown a pattern of destructive behaviour or clearly showed intent during Drunk Mafia to take a rule breaking action before doing so.
As the rules and punishments system was created after decisions were discussed about the Drunk Mafia game, previous games were not taken into consideration. If people acted poorly in a previous game, they were handled at that point in time, whether that be publicly or privately. I would seriously question the motives of someone seeking punishments for previous games given what I have just explained as the order of events.
Those of you with warnings, as stated in the OP, they will be removed after three games of normal play. As others have said, these rules are not difficult to follow; you would have to go out of your way to commit a rule break imo, and as I have said myself, I suspect these were just cases of lapse of judgment and have full faith those on warnings will have them removed within that three game timeframe.