Your evidence has no regard to it.
It's the fact that loosing Cardigan over your personal problems would be a huge mistake. Right now, all you're trying to do is protect 'SARAH' and 'REN' because they got shouted at. But we all know that he was provoked.
Behave, the lot of you. You don't appease Konth's promise of controlling you - Cardigan may have went over the top, but he had a damn good reason.
Being 'buddy buddy' is as much of a valid justification for us as it is for you. You might have some chat logs, but to be honest - just some qq from Sarah and a slight rage that actually shows a response to YOUR actions (the whole context of it just explains and proves in its entirety that you provoked him) doesn't cover it.
I don't care about your affilation between the two communities. It doesn't actuate me to give a single fuck about the case. The thing is that you guys haven't shown loyalty to ZARP - and on a note with no regard to this, the accused's actions were completely valid - over the top or not, he was obviously provoked.
Of course he can not prove that he was provoked, given that he hasn't been out to prove trouble - and you are. But the thing is, you're just giving us a bad impression of your community as this does very much appear to be an act of revenge based upon 'CARDIGAN's retaliation to your provocative communications. The Steam community messages are enough to say that you did something to make him do so.
Your argument of being nothing to do with disruption is invalid. As I've proven above, this is clearly disruption in the form of trying to get someone you dislike banned - just because he didn't want to approve of Sarah's needs.
Affiliation or not, proof or not, buddy-buddy or not, this is still an invalid case. Cases have been denied before because they are outside of ZARP - and they'll be denied again, unless you wish to be inconsistent and go with:
Sarah cried. Ren cried. Let's ban him.
...which will not happen, as emotions don't play a part in this unfortunately for yourselves.
Even if we DID deal with things outside of ZARP - there'd be no way to prove that ANY of those messages came from the accused, as the steam messages were mainly just quotes, and you could have VERY easily made your steam profile correspond with Cardigans.
So you can call a bias towards out "buddies" - you can say we don't have proof of "being provoked" - but to no avail, as the comment in red above outlines.
Sarah wrote:
Cardigan, then don't talk your smack if you don't have any proof.
He doesn't need to prove why he talks 'smack' - it's at his own leisure and ZARP has no right to control this. It'd be morally wrong. Should he have taken down proof of your side of the bullying and made a report at SDGaming, you would have been of the exact same opinion.