Well, first of all, let me say this: any company has all rights to set rules as they want. It is THEIR company, so they have the right to set up a rule, that at the end means that anything they consinder harmful ... at the end IS harmful and can (or even will) be punished (or not) according to THEIR decision. So, on first thoughts there is nothing wrong with a rule that allows them any interpretation using language that feels like dense fog.
Well, they have those rights, but that doesn't mean, that I like rules like that one.
Why?
First:
It's a one sided rule. And I hate one sided rules, because they destroy trust and confidence ... and cause discussions that at the end also make people who stand up to ask for an appeal, for support of the punished, ... to leave the game.
Second:
90% of all fights about rules are caused by misunderstandings. There ARE cases that cannot be misunderstood, like offers to trade illegal stuff, for example. All other fights almost never have one wrongdoer and one who can be 100% sure about his judgement. A little piece of "guilt" will always be on both sides.
Means, if I (and I mean ME) start a PN fight with a moderator or CM (or boss) we are BOTH right, and we are BOTH wrong. I we cannot come to a conclusion, we EITHER have differend perceptions on that case, different background, different experiences in life, different views (there is no "truth [tm]")... so we could agree to think different, agree to disagree, but value the other one as a human being, worth to be listened to. OR ... we can carry on, telling our opinion, until the side with more might gives up (but who is the one with more might? The company whose rule allow to excluse customers from community, or the customer who stops plaing and thus creates less income for the company) ... OR we can discuss in a way with the intention, the objective, to find a solution, a compromise, a workaround ... OR we can call others to assist us by starting a mediation, by bringing in a third perception for example.
There is only one of these many ways made possible with that rule: RN decides about "harmful" and punishes at there discretion and never continues discussion.
Third:
Well, I also think of how we do punishments in RL. There are courts and judges for that. And if real harm is done, bad enough to exclude a person from the communiy of the others for a long time, there's (at least in the US and Europe) never a judge deciding everything. Appeals are always possible in our countries. Judges in the US will have to follow the decision of a jury, a jury of normal people. In Europe the jury people sit beside the judges, count - though being normal people - as judges and can outvote the installed judges.
Also, each wrongdoer may ask for an appeal and will be supported by ... well by an attorney, and they can bring up witnesses who support their perception of the harm done.
And mediation procedures are more and more preferred instead of lawsuits ... and mediators should be neutral, not being bound to the company.
How we deal with right or wrond or with harmful or not in RL, should at least tell us a little bit about how to deal with
Well, these 3 points tell, why I somehow hate one sided rules. But I also accept that RN has the right to set up a rule like that.
And I fully agree to that rule, if someone for example would start to sell porn ingame or in the forum.
Also, there MUST be a rule that allows them to protect their company (and product) if they see it under harmful attacks that are not mentioned in other rules.
Nevertheless I would love to see the willingless to offer appeals that do not only suggest a mail to "complaints", but also considers listening to witnesses, including mediators, giving the wrongdoer a chance to tell their perception ... yes, that will take some more time, some extra action, but will increase the trust in the decisions of the company. And make customers blamed for wrongdoing possibly change into long time customers.
(I can only repeat my experience. When I was admin of the largest forum I ever supported, I once had to ban a user from it for a week, according to one of the rules. But I staid in contact with him, ask him to return and he became my successor, and did a great job. Means: wrongdoers are not always bad people, very often they would give anything for the game, product, forum ... but will be chased away by one sided rules)
The forum software allows to quickly set up a part, where only the CM, the supporter, the wrongdoer, the witnesses, the mediators and a friend of the wrongdoer (their supporter, lawyer, attorney) and maybe a jury of experienced gamers are allowed to post and to find a good solution TOGETHER.
That's a suggestion, not a claim. A suggestion to think about. I do not ask for appeals and mediations ... I just ask to think about to use one sided rules together with an explanation, that you consider to listen to the other side too, even if in your perception a lot of harm is done.
- - - - -
Edit:
I wrote too long, Samisu was shorter, quicker, and ... better. Thank you so much for your answer, Samisu.
But I think, I will leave my text here, as there might be tiny little diamond fragments in it, that RN might think about.