This is a direct response to the on-going report investigation against @PixeL found here: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-pixel.51836/#post-545400 And the closed ban appeal from @nilz found here: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/nilzs-appeal.51835/ First and foremost I'd like to state that by making a thread like this it is my wish to promote beneficial development for the community as a whole, and that I also understand both Pixel and Teroxa have been preoccupied with IRL responsibilities that might inhibit them from providing fully detailed explanations. However, with the recent revision of the Extended Rules done by MangoTango it is in the best interest of all us that when punishments like Toxic Gameplay, and it's similar partner punishments, are given out and then appealed that they should be detailed in long-form and have all adequate evidence to display that it is in fact what the apeallee deserves. Otherwise these gray area discretionary punishments will further evolve into a breeding ground for abuse and acceptance of that abuse; Which can quite honestly only be described as a languishing approach to staffing and community management. There needs to be a solid foundation within the reports and appeal system that expects the staff-members managing them to provide accurate proof of the crime committed. In Nilz's case, there is a significant lack thereof. Thankfully Pixel can also understand that Heli calling the KOS in this scenario puts Heli in the wrong and potentially warrants a slay if Nilz died because of the KOS. Him mentioning, however, that "Some players may in fact kiill for this suspicion though[...]" is mis-leading and is not how this situation should be interpreted by a staff-member at all. The focus should not be on the what if's and instead on the what's and how's. Otherwise this would be a direct statement from the Administration that it is okay to punish players for things they might do and not what they have actually done. Further-more he goes on to say "there was another piece of evidence of nilz saying someone else shot him", yet I can't quite see the necessity of mentioning this because not only was the proof not displayed for us to see, but he then goes on to counter it himself by stating "Again, not kosable or anything but[...]" which leads you to believe he's almost suggesting to you that something was wrong but he can't quite tell what it is. This suggestive approach is not what what we'd want from the people who have the power to potentially end a player's time here on a whim. No, it actually can't count because it doesn't state so here: Unless he's going off the rails here and using the label of Toxic Gameplay but using pure Admin discretion to twist Nilz's case into something that could now be punished then that'd be another story. However, he made no such claim to having used discretion and instead implies that he is citing the rules directly. Players will always express concerns if they interrupt their own agendas. As the Administration, you should be focusing on what interrupts the community's agenda and not just a vocal minority. To emphasize this part because it's what bothers me the most- it just doesn't sit right with me that Pixel claims to have talked to the other Admins and they all concluded that it was okay to ban for "thin to none." They're going off a whim and stating it's okay to not have evidence if it's one of the discretionary punishments because they do in fact possess the ability to use discretion. I'm sure I don't need to explain how unhealthy that mind-set is for the community. If there is something you are not okay with a player doing then express it through your work and revise the rules to reflect it. Don't approach this situation half-heartedly and disrespect your community player's time. They deserve to know why they're being punished and how to improve for the future. If you're not interested in keeping players then keep going down the route that you are, but please don't pretend you care about the community if you're willing to build it upon sacrifices along the way. The way Nilz's plays is unfavorable, sure, and that is definitely a valid argument, but if you attempt to express that you don't want him and other players playing like that then do so by updating your rules, accurately posting examples and points to their appeals and reports, and provide the time to explain what is and is not okay.