And then your system would get the same complaints as the current one as scores of people would come on and complain about the black box of nefarious decision making that blatantly is unfair (since they were removed so obviously it was unjust). Since the canned response is the only coms on the offense, they first couple are ignored but as more and more come out saying unfair, the “overwhelming evidence” of number of complaints would start swaying more people that something is up. Some good hearted person would take time and make up an alternative method of administration in hopes this trend of potential abuse would be prevented.
The heart of the issue is that the issue is only one sided visibility and that is of the offenders. The company is tight lipped over specific cases. As I have said before, there are some folks that I trust over others in their complaints on here and so the theory has some weight that enforcement is not standardized and subjective…but the thing is that I still don’t know if it’s unjust or not because of this policy of discretion in specific cases…I don’t know why that is pushed. There is no perception of privacy while playing the game so I don’t think there is a legal issue there. So why is there this idea that a cloak is needed for enforcement? Put up a wall of shame. Make it quite clear what it was, who it was, and where it was. How is it beneficial to learn if it’s hidden?