Your application is lacking, it looks rushed and could be made a lot better. Some of situation explinations are bad.
Explain how you would handle the following situation:
Player x accuses player y for RDMing him, the console log shows that player y killed player x. I would ask Player y if he had a reason for killing player x. if player y said something stupid or doesn't comply I would warn him and tell him to read the rules.
Are you saying you would warn player Y because you didn't like his response or simply didn't trust him? We act upon proof not stories unless the accused confesses.
Explain how you would handle the following situation:
Player x accuses player y for breaking NLR, the kills are pretty close together in console (a few lines apart) at a peak time.
I would TP to player Y and ask him why he nlr'd. After hearing his story if it sounded really stupid and completely different I would jail him for 1 minute and tell him to read the rules.
Here we go again with a similar thing to before, you cannot warn someone because their story is different or sounded stupid(to a certain limit). There could be reasons behind it that show that player Y didn't break any rules at all and was defending himself after player X attacked him again, if we were do things this way a lot of people would have false warns.
In short I think you should reconsider how you would handle things and take some inspiration from other applicants or staff.