In regards to the recent bans

[Ichiru]

I wasn't going to engage in this initially, but after reading it's obvious that the administration still misunderstands that their ways of justifying their actions are what is the problem at hand.

Why did you do it this way?

This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.
This is why we decided to make a two staged vote for this, one vote to see if we really want to do this, with all problems it might involve and a second vote to decide whom to ban.

The entire point of warnings and bans is to get people to change their behaviour. Saying that they are changing their behaviour in order to be in line with what the administration wants is a bad thing is not an acceptable reason in order to not give them out. If you find behaviour that is harmful but not listed in the rules, you can modify the rules. That's how a living community should work, and is in fact how it works in real life. Rules are changed in order to exclude poor behaviour.

A few of the banned people have asked for evidence, we have given it to the people where we have conclusive forum evidence, in some cases however there is not a lot of evidence on the forums and we had to use different sources and had to trust our judgement, see above why.
What should be said here is that the Admins technically do not have to give out any evidence for this decision as it is not related to the rules. It is a decision that was done outside of the rules in order to 'develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums; which has been our task ever since.

All the fluff removed, this pretty much says "We couldn't properly justify ourselves within the set of rules we created in order to get the result we wanted." This means one of two things.

1. You couldn't be bothered to complete a proper process before banning.
   
2. You don't have sufficient reason to ban within the rules
   

Both of these outcomes reflect incredibly poorly upon the administration.

Overall you've basically justified your decision with "we don't like these people" which is not a valid reason to remove people from a community, and completely destroys the validity and credibility of the rule set you've created. It says that these rules do not apply to everyone, and can be thrown out at will whether it be for the good or the bad of the community.

Furthermore, needing to keep an iron fist over the development team is not a reason to admit that this was handled incredibly poorly and that poor decisions were made. Failing to recognise this just shows arrogance on part of the administration and damages the already very low level of trust that exists between the administration and the community.