That's why I said it had to be x number of different members, where x is greater than 1 (and less than, say, 10), and that the temp-ban could be appealed in meta - if a moderator/admin looks at the offender's post history and sees that they are not, in fact, shitposts/scams/etc. then it would be those who unfairly reported the posts that get the ban.
I still don't think this would work. There are a number of members with large numbers of alt accounts who could still easily abuse this, and mods are busy enough as it is without having a bunch of fake bans to review.
Okay, so you don't like my suggestion but didn't suggest an alternate approach yourself... Forgive me if I don't take your rebuttal too seriously, then.
Providing an alternative is not a requirement for disagreeing with someone's point of view, and not providing an alternative does not make my argument any less valid. Your system is too open to abuse and manipulation.
No, providing an alternate solution isn't a requirement - and I didn't say it was - but if you do provide one (and, even better, the reasoning behind such) it certainly makes me pay more attention to what you have to say.
As of now your argument is merely that members with lots of alts could "take down their enemies" by reporting posts maliciously, and that relying on admins to police this abuse would add to their workload. I agree that both are possible, I just don't think that this kind of abuse would happen often enough.
But I'll allow that I might be putting too much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly.