This is pretty much the heart of what I was trying to get at.

I'm not saying there's no judgement in handing out a title or not handing out a title. What I'm saying is that on one hand you have X criteria and the concensus is "This is poor behavior." And then, at some other point in time, you have X criteria again and "This is acceptable behavior." Its not about the fact that someone got punished or not, its that the general ruling on the behavior changed and we as players have no idea about it.

I'm ok with "that guy slipped through the cracks, we didn't see him" so long as there's a general concensus that what he did was *wrong*. But, the concensus is what changes, because the opinions change. Ideally, some of this stuff should get written down and made public as a set of hard guidelines. They may not result in 100% equal treatment in all cases, but at the very least they would explicitly state what was wrong behavior and what isn't wrong behavior. If you're toeing the line you'd know about it and if you got away with it you can consider yourself lucky.

I'm limiting this specifically to punishments. I know rewards should be subjective, but punishments should probably be mostly objective.