I don't want to participate in this argument here, especially as I am biased towards Phazhey. From his style of playing the game I know he is far away from a subjective point of view, but has a great feeling for "the whole thing", so in this special case I would say he is far beyond any doubt!
Though I heard scary stories about other admins, so you can't say it in general.
I would suggest the following thing to minimize the problems of the community not understanding or accepting admin decisions:
First of all you have to set up a catalogue of offences, and to make it public. Don't just list them up, but explain them and determine where the boundaries begin and end.
Whenever an admin kicks or bans someone, he has to add in chat to which rule he is referring to. As I assume in most cases the admins act justifiedly (does this word exist?
), you can prevent most of the unjustified admin abuse threads.
Only when it's not clear how to apply a rule on a certain situation (or the other way round) there COULD be room for discussions, but even then I would say the admin decides.
You should set up concrete rules for different situations. E.g. archers are only allowed to run away at the end of the round when the ratio of enemies doesn't exceed the archer's k/d-ratio. (0 deaths counts as one death) So an archer with 2:1 (or 2:0) is allowed to run away from two enemies, with a 9:3 he is allowed to run away from 3 and so on.
At the first moment such rules sounds stupid, and yes, of course they definitely can be unfair, but I think the advantage of such a rule (it's decided this way, it's clear, it's unmistakeable, and thus there is no room for discussions and rage topics on the forum), so you should set those up by all means!
