A behavioural view of toxicity & moderation on MS

[Isis]

I agree toxic players enjoy a bump to winrate.
League of Legends toxicity reviewers do not view the username of the person they are considering punishing. That's a meaningful difference. That's probably not feasible for MS.

I'm of the opinion that it would be better for the site if game moderators were more active in warning and forcereplacing for toxicity based on some sort of standard. The current system is, the players get rough. People don't want to report eachother's posts and ask a listmod to look at it, because they're a party to the argument and in a way that's calling it a draw, or sidestepping, or whatever. Or it wouldn't benefit their alignment. Then things get even rougher. Then people start reporting posts at the "even rougher" phase because the integrity of the game or whatever word I'm trying to think of has started to pale in comparison.
The guaranteed impartial spectator should be the game moderator, who can operate based on some kind of consistent standard and issue warnings and forcereplaces based on the discourse in the thread. They probably would like perceive scum as meaner and replace toxic scum 13% more of the time or whatever but who cares.
____________________________________________
Since toxicity is hard to define maybe some kind of locksticky with example posts marked "tolerable" and "not acceptable" would be good. It's pretty useful for the ongoing games rule. I don't know if the subjectivity is so thick that wouldn't do enough good.

[Isis]

I just don't understand that view at all. A moderator will never be able to decide whether holding a player to a standard they set by removing them from the game is unjust, but the players will all have an easy time deciding whether forcing a player out of the game with a loss of win% is just or not?