[Jammin]

The relevant rule reads:
"Do not intentionally attempt to crash the server."
I note that there is nothing within the staff guidelines advising of what to do for someone intentionally attempting to crash the server. Falling under hacking section, it would imply a permanent ban if the situation occurred.

In this case, we have to prove a violation of this rule. We have to prove that:
1. The action was intentional
2. The action was attempting to crash the server

At this point in time, the rule doesn't technically ban lagging server. The rules don't also clarify that this action of barrel spam could crash the server. Given that is the case, and given that the discussion was more about what would happen if barrel spam occurred, I don't believe a ban would be warranted. I don't think intention can be proven.
Additionally, I don't think this would crash a server. It appears this action would just lag it out for a very short period of time. There is a difference between causing client side lag and causing a server side meltdown. If running into the cars on 67th way and ragdolling into the ceiling can cause the server to crash, wouldn't anyone getting killed by the cars be subject to similar punishment?
Additionally, this particular case was previously discussed in Phoenix's old thread. The issue was not addressed at the time, the only possible indication at the time was that the action was "handled correctly." Giving that the accusation against the staff at the time was at the staff did nothing about the spammer, except maybe give a general warning, that appears to be the appropriate action for this case as well.
I feel this should be added to the list of exploits or called out in the rules as something that could crash a server, before this rule is enforced as such. I don't think there should be a loud, as this kind of lag could cause Gmod to crash. I compare it to discord crashing gifs, which are currently treated as permanent bans in our discord.
But until that rules clarified I don't think I could justify a ban. I'm not going to take action on this and I will allow an admin to handle it, but I don't think a ban is appropriate. A warning at best.