I am going to be completely honest and say that hacking is one of those things where bias and blind speculation will often times lead to unjustifiable bans where a little bit of fishy evidence is portrayed as being the smoking gun. The problem here is that other factors exist, and they make it incredibly hard to spot hackers. If you believe that someone is a hacker, you are going to take every little second of their game play as an example of them hacking and run with it. If I desired to watch you play for long enough I bet I could scrape together a few out of context snap shots to put you out of the game for a long time. The level of false positives in gmod is way too high to conceptualize. Oh, he bhops pretty good, must be running a script. Oh, he is pretty decent with the rifle, he must be hacking. Oh, I really can't tell if he has no recoil or if my ping is just high, he must be hacking. A good admin or mod can look at this with reasonable skepticism and say "hey, you know what? I am not comfortable banning this person on the evidence I have", but others may be gung ho and ready to go. This reveals a huge problem: Bias. Some admins and mods get so committed to putting away specific people for hacking that you start to wonder if the person could reasonably called a hacker, or if the staff member just doesn't like them for their skill or other reasons. The more willingly you are to believe that someone is a rule breaker, the more willingly you are to accept when an example presents itself. Admins are not immune to this kind of behavior, and experience really does no good to prevent this. Imagine seeing an admin in spectator all the time watching you while you play. I wonder what they could possibly be wanting to do. Now imagine giving that admin the power to perma ban.