So, I'm pretty biased having been on staff from pretty early(mostly because of technical contributions, not community), but I also really enjoyed the GH servers. And I'm a little distant from this particular argument, so I'll weigh in.
The AoS community has organized in a more fragmented direction than traditional FPS games because of some accidents related to its origins as a small freeware game; although Ben is pursuing the game within his own vision and holds the most immediate power, the center of gravity lies somewhere between Ben, the server owners, staff, pyspades contributors, and players. When we disagree, we get into fights - not with punches or insults - but via our various platforms of power, and eventually reach some consensus or splintering. This is why server experiences tend to vary a lot; although we each want to make the best experience, we don't share vision so we're letting a lot of different philosophies compete for player attention within what's ostensibly the same "game."
If you're an admin with your own community like GH and just want to host the game in a certain way, you may not be interested in getting into street brawls, but this has been our status quo for some time - and it's really at the heart of the argument, regardless of the specific details, because it filters into our thinking about how to apply technology, how to treat users, what parts of gameplay are important, and so on.
AoS started from such an anarchic state that policy consensus even on individual admin actions can be slow, causing events like "Stack bans arti, Ben unbans him". The inconsistency looks bad, but it's a side effect of going slowly. Even though we get frustrated or mistaken, the aim has been to make community moderation a self-correcting system with justified outcomes. Since we didn't start from a position of experience or even good infrastructure, we have to run through the learning curve, make mistakes, debate, and then respond with gradual adjustments, compromises and improvements, as tGM just did by introducing the feedback form.
If we were as autocratic as claimed, we would have found a reason to get rid of, e.g., Reuben a long time ago and he would not exist as a voice in this discussion or in official community venues. We would have killed this thread and any similar one immediately. A large chunk of the #AoS population would be gone as well. It'd be easy to get a bunch of toadying yes-men in here. The fact that we haven't, and that in fact, we allow a chorus of protest to come through unfiltered, should tell you that it's not that simple. We treat people differently from the system, even when the people are obviously trying to disrupt the system.
But this process also means that there is no easy route to get what you want, unless you consider politics easy.