1.) I think the phrase “who had joined the region in good faith” is important here because it’s essentially a clause saying, if it’s obvious they’re trolling just to troll, then you may eject them without due process.

That being said I hate how this court handles interpretation because not everyone thinks the same and judging what’s good faith would be inane.

So instead, to make it less “corrupt”, I’d say describe the action instead of intent.

Something like “no member, excluding those who had or are making the [insert whatever] universally unenjoyable, unnavigable, or profane to a people, may be banned or blah de blah”

Because I think that’s where the confusion comes in, allowing boarder control to banish those who are making the game far worse than it should be, all else like election fraud and what not should be taken to court, but immediate problems require immediate solutions.

2.) Which is why I think the second rule used immediate, and is why I think just taking out that one word would do (Conduct violations are punishable by ejection and banishment from the region.)

Immediately gives the sense of action, while removing immediately makes it more in line with a “we’re allowed to do this.”

I think removing “immediately” would work on itself but if you want to make the legislation less psychoanalytical then the first point must also have the second point.