[apefish]

Jumping in here to say that while I think Stars handled it fine- that is to say their prompt responses, curteousness, and full explanations are far beyond what any other site would do- and while their ruling is not out of line with their own wording on situations like this, I think OP is being given too hard a time on this.

Whether you like how Stars responded or not, leaving areas like this up to the judgment of someone looking over chat logs means you will in fact get inconsistent rulings on the same area of complaints.

I'm not saying the wrong ruling happened here. I'm not even saying OP has fully disclosed or not disclosed an accurate chain of events.
But there is a kernel of a very valid point in his post and I'm not sure people should be deriding his position just because we think the path Stars chose to follow is reasonable.

I assume if he had come in here and posted about Stars finding it egregious enough to remedy we would have largely taken a similar stance of "well handled Stars".

Sometimes it's hard to see the distinctions when it happens to you. Often it's harder to see the distinctions when it is in fact a clear cut violation with no clear cut penalty.

OP is saying "make the penalties clearer" - and I don't disagree with his prerogative to question what happened here.