I think I can probably explain why evidence isn't shown in all cases- especially since this is one of those cases that will probably be the case. Some of the tools that we use sincerely do have 100% conclusive evidence that a hack client was being used on the servers. I can say with confidence that this isn't just some type of 'detection' software like cake which is notoroious for false-detections. They're tools that may display portions of source code, or other types of residues that the hack may be sending to the server. It gives more evidence than just 'Oh this person is hacking- ban'. The reason this isn't released publically is due to the fact that majority of the time this can also release which hacks we are able to find, which source code may need to be disguised/altered, etc. It is absolutely beyond something that can just give off a false positive since more information is provided than just saying it's positive. That being said- being former administration myself, I can say with confidence that we're not just out to go banning people for hacks because they're suspiciously good. No matter how annoying they are, there is going to need to be evidence behind it. If we say that there is 100% conclusive evidence, that means there is more than just some videos backing the ban, and it is truly 100% conclusive. You're just gonna have to trust us in those cases because providing the evidence, unfortunately, can normally just cause more issues down the line. Note, these offenses are also all collected and under peer review as well. Although the peer review portion on these is pretty unneeded since these type of bans are totally conclusive. It's more of a check and balance against people banning for no reason- even though I don't have anyone suspecting of doing so.