I'd say just have a blanket rule against toxicity and leave it up to the admins, BUT this would not go well, because of one fact, the admins are police, judge, jury, executioner and they are also their own appeal court, this would make toxicity entirely up to what an individual admin deems as toxic. Those not being punished aren't even allowed to have an opinion on a report or an appeal if they see things from another point of view, you can't even apply a rating anymore to express an opinion.You're definitely not wrong, but however the rule is worded, people are going to say that anyway. Even if it was a blanket "toxicity" rule, you'll still ban people, and they'll still claim they were just talking a little trash, not being toxic.
From what I'm understanding, admins are already actioning toxicity, he just wants a rule in place so he can point to it when people complain on reddit.
I'm still not entirely on board with banning blanket "toxicity", and I was simply trying to offer something that makes it clear that actual toxic people, not clowns, are going to find themselves actioned.
This just tells me that any rule would have be against a specific behaviour or you are just going to have people complain that Skial sucks because of their admin, it doesn't cure the problem of people slagging off skial, it's just pushes the bubble down to have it pop up somewhere else. The word 'toxicity' doesn't actually mean anything specific enough.
If admin are actioning toxicity, perhaps more of them should post in this thread stating what line those people have crossed, what did they exactly do or say to get punished? This should give at least a basic idea of what this dreaded toxicity is and allow the drawing up of a framwork to hang a rule from. My guess is it's for threating people IRL and constantly hounding someone with abuse.