But runners have swore and haven't been banned, like with the Jak 3 run, which went in a way that the runner had to say he hadn't been banned.
I think i heard someone in a speedrunning podcast say that aside from Bonesaw which seems like someone just didn't like him, the rules of GDQ are far less strict than most people think, they can swear once or twice, they just don't want them to swear left and right, and of course not saying anything insulting to a demographic or related to politics, but that's because they are a charity.
Worse, they are apparently the kind of charity that legally can't have any political statements or they have to pay a tax, add to that the fact they want to be inclusive towards everyone and you have them just wanting a family stream that can have a few swears that's it.
As long as no one breaks any laws, mentions anything related to the left or right in big detail(aka, more than a really quick comment or phrase) then they don't ban anyone....except for Bonesaw.
In fact, i believe a lot of runners that were banned accept their bans, like, for example, Werster has said he completely understands his ban to a point where he doesn't even seem to be bothered by it.
I mean, the latest ban was Grav and RWhiteGoose, and that was because they made a lot of posts in a public Discord server that would make a lot of people uncomfortable with their appearance there, so of course GDQ banned them.
I also think it's important to mention this, GDQ IS A CHARITY EVENT, sure, they have games and speedruns in it, but they are focusing on charity rather than the games themselves, while they care about gaming, i think they feel like raising money for charity is far more important than showing some people playing a game fast, and if they feel like those people have broken the rules, some laws or have said some really awful stuff a lot of people don't like, they will ban them just to not get in legal trouble or raise less money.
...Or Bonesaw which i think was mostly motivated by someone not liking him all that much and even he seems to agree with their decision without any issue.
As for bans...well, they do have rules and seem to think about them from basis to basis, at least in 2017, they used to consider disruptive situations(speedrunners who did something troublesome for them or that viewers did not like) by talking with each other and asking these questions:
1. Was the person aware of the situation?
2. Did it appear malicious?
3. How often did it occur?
4. Does it also violate other rules, such as charity or hotel rules?
5. How serious is the situation? Things like property damage or physical violence are likely to result in immediate banishment, for instance.
They have said they are not perfect as well, though, and hope to improve.