I will give it from and IC perspective:
Quote:
"To use your example, gank group had already set up post on the outskirts in order to try and kill you, and the criminal came along and saw that they were there. The criminal then proceeds to take advantage of that situation. There was no "aiding" there. Unless you are going to warrant based on the fact that the group should have left at that moment and dispersed because to even be there was to "aid." At that point you're basically warranting people for having to take an action to leave an area that theyd have every legal right to be in, just because someone else enters. Which makes absolutely 0 sense to me."

Answer:
I think I gave this elsewhere (And IC while the groups were smaller I did try to fight in the situations) what I can tell you is this
- Did the other group always get flags?
++ If they did not fight me while I fought 100% no
++ If they engaged yes, but only those who did

Quote:
"I'll use an own personal example to show a different concept. Person P sees magistrate M fighting criminal C in Hamsah. M words to Galadon. M is now en route back Hamsah on eastern when P sees him. M then detours to go a diff route back to Hamsah. That's at least what P thinks. So P goes and stands right outside the southern gate of Hamsah to hope and catch him walking. Meanwhile, C walks up to the area after P does and stands next to him, thinking the same thing. M then gets attacked, and warrants P. Did P aid? Even though P has his own agenda, M is outside of town, and P got there first? It's quite possible they colluded. It's also just as likely they didn't. Would you warrant P? Let's say they are in the same cabal. Would you warrant P then, even if they never tacitly or explicitly agreed to anything?"

Answer:
So if I have this right whats not clear is "M then gets attacked, and warrants P" who did the attacking? And it sounds like P and C were standing together for a time as M was approaching.

But for the sake of the answer I will assume that P attacked

Yes I would warrant P, for aiding a criminal to elude punishment collusion or not.

However I have made assumptions here but rest assured 100% there were plenty of instances where I would not flag. BUT having said that lets consider that P and C have pulled this stunt a number of times, the opportunity for benefit of the doubt to be applied most definitely would diminish.

I think one of the biggest issues is people think the application was
and I grossly over exaggerate to make point
"Criminal Elf is on eastern road, I'm on eastern road, HEY the criminal is gone, that level 11 elf is on eastern road they must have told them, GUILTY"
OR
"That criminal had chicken in there corpse, who else has chicken, everyone online does, GUILTY"
I can assure you that was not the case.