Who is doing this exploit > perma banned from all events.
Stop for once being a pussy and take attitude against actual events exploiters.
Sound policy enforcement isn't a matter of flailing around like an ape with the biggest hammer you can swing. There are multiple design goals which should be balanced appropriately.
One important design goal, for example, is to help educate players on how a game's policies apply in practice, since documents alone are not generally comprehensive enough to unambiguously set precise boundaries for every situation that might arise. To this end, after an individual has been investigated and it has been concluded beyond reasonable doubt that they've committed an infraction, giving them a warning and explaining how their action violates the game's policies, in sufficient detail that they should be able to understand how to apply the violated policy better in future cases, is the most natural remedy. Warnings should be temporarily tracked, and if a player gets too many warnings in a short period of time, their penalties do have to become short suspensions, and then short suspensions have to become long suspensions. Education is still a primary goal of the issuing this type of penalty, but incentivizing the player to follow the policy is another goal which must be integrated. Perhaps deleting one "warning/suspension point" from a player's account after every 6 months of the player not committing any new infractions would be a good balance. Of course, for special cases in which MindArk can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a player has committed a policy violation
intentionally and
for the sake of gaining an unfair advantage (this type of investigation should
always involve transparent communication with the player, not presumptions of their intentions), it is reasonable to move immediately to suspensions.
Don't look to Amazon or social media companies for examples of sound policy enforcement. What they're engaged in is more about brand risk mitigation than justice. They actually make a conscious choice quite often not to tell users why they were suspended, or how to behave more in line with policy in the future, and the trend is moving toward more vague language in their policies rather than more clarity. Their "justice" is getting rid of users on a case-by-case basis if it's good for their business model, not based on the frequency or severity of their infractions. I would look to something like Magic the Gathering tournament policy enforcement as a much better blueprint.