So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[Amberyl]

Currently, option 2 is what is currently in place, since a GM needs to investigate either way, and allows the GM to consider new types of disruptive behaviour that arise instead of waiting for a change to the tool while keeping the tool interface easy to navigate and use.

While I can appreciate the benefits to the organization of using this to explore community misbehaviour, you're reliant on the concept that the majority of people victimized by misuse of the kick-vote feature go on to report their grievance.

Realistically, this won't be the case. If a new player doesn't understand the game well enough to know how their job role works and is illegitimately vote-kicked for that, are they likely to understand how to report a grievance? No, more than likely not. They'll just presume the community is as toxic as it appears, and go play something else. The low-benchmark for GM response in the industry won't help that either, regardless of how efficient your own team may be.

If you're going to insist on continuing with this 'it doesn't have to match what the prompt says' system, I would request you also examine a random cross-section of logs from sessions where a kick-vote occurs and no grievance is filed, to gauge to what degree you're missing misuse. Specifically, crunch level-sync instances such as Darkhold, Vale, and Qarn, would be a good place to start, as they're prone to poor behaviour relative to their increased difficulty. I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs - you may already be doing this. My request is there purely because you may not have considered it, or the extra workload may have previously been considered poor use of funds. I would urge to you that it isn't.

On the downside, it is limited by the creativity of customers to find ways of disrupting a run outside of what is listed.

That's no different to what you're doing now, except the current lack of specificity gives you a perceived get-out-clause for not acting. Whether the bad-behaviour list is public-facing or not, you've still got to refer back to it as a GM to rule. The lack of transparency and accountability merely shields you from recourse when you make a bad decision. When a victim is already feeling let down by the system, a lack of transparency only adds to their grievance. Surely that's a bad thing?

If the list needs to be big and is growing, let the community see that. Policing behaviour can only be easier if the community is aware. Less turning a blind eye, more self-policing.