Uhhhh...forgive noob question...why are players in charge of balancing combat? I know the admin approve or reject final reports, but why does everything have to be generated by players? We are all biased. Crowsourcing some from players is a good idea as part of an overall balancing strategy, but not as the only strategy. Do we not have a neutral game designer somewhere watching combats going, "Hmmm, in the past few months, warrior kills have been significantly less than other classes, lets try buffing them." And if not, why not?
As in every system out there, be it real world or fantasy games, you only receive a punishment on being caught. If authorities just had a magic log akin to Minority Report then there straight up would be no conflict or 'crime' in any case.
Isn't the whole point of controversial quests the potential for consequence, which is a key part of the roleplay and immersion experience? It'd be so boring if people didn't react to it... You're just doing some variation of a basic puzzle otherwise.
Consequence is fine if it involves actually getting caught. Someone looking you up on a magic log would take away the fun of stealth, countermeasures, rping some other reason for being in the area etc.
I don't know what the IC justification for quest rankings would be so I don't treat it as IC.
Edit: Consequences are usually dull anyway. Enemying, disfavours, ousting. The added excitement is from trying not to get caught!
Honestly, the QUEST <quest> RANKINGS is the worst because it makes it trivially easy to spot anyone who may be doing a controversial quest (eafs). Delete pls.