Sparkle your intentions are good when explaining things to new players. Of that, I have no doubt. And it can get frustrating in such a teamwork-oriented game. But I find that I get better results out of newbies when approaching that gap of knowledge with a patient explanation rather than showing frustration and breeding toxicity. A level 2 has never set foot on a mobula before. They won't know why two full-repair kits are needed. Explaining that the parts are very spread out. Explaining the logic behind the choice does much more in earning their respect and displaying your knowledge of the game much more than arguing from authority. It gets results, too.
Remember, it's not your job to explain to new players. And, remember that players are there to have fun. A captain yelling about how they suck because they don't know the game isn't fun. I don't treat newbies like special snowflakes because I feel obligated to, I do so because it's what gets results (and I generally try to be respectful to people and keep track of my own canoe.) I explain things with the understanding of that massive knowlage gap. When I do get to toxic and salty I quit the game, or crew with some buddies I know. Just last night I had a newbie crew and got kicked to the curb by Mr. Hadush and Sundstrom of SkBo. When I realized I was about to start passing blame around or get loud, I left the match to quit and cool off. I reckon if you put this into practice you'll see a lot less people reporting you.
There isn't a punishment for bad play or lack of in-game knowlage because IT IS OKAY TO BE BAD AT A VIDEO GAME. There is no malace or ill-will or toxicity when I miss a repair cooldown as a crap engineer. There is lots of toxicity, malace, and salt when the captian gives me an earful over things that were either out of my knowledge or above my skill level. "Aim better" is not constructive. "Use the map cross-referenced with the notches on the hades cannon sight to better your aim" is constructive, because it gives me the knowledge to improve with practice. Likewise "Take his loadout because he has more matches than you." Is not constructive. "Take a repair loadout because the components are very spread out on this ship." Is constructive, because it gives context for the correct play. While you wanted the ship to be effective, you didn't provided the context to do so at first. Only after you were being very loud and unsportsmanlike did you provide context, but at that point, may players decided to leave the lobby, myself included.
I do agree to the point that muse needs to maintain their community standards in their official livestreams and in all of their Guns of Icarus media for professionalism's sake. To set the example for the community, as it were.
Lets not finger-point CA's. They volunteer to be helpful to newbies when they can. I've seen CA's train pilots and be very helpful and friendly to newbies.
Finally, I do think loadouts should be able to be declined and selected be engies/gunners. It put's too much power in the hands of the captians and may make players feel very insignificant in the engineer or gunner role. Furthermore, I think it places an undue importance on the role of captianing, and makes the information burdern for new captians even higher, as a new captian will have to learn what loadouts to equip other players with in addition to their ship. It's not that hard to explain about the correct loadout. I do think that loadouts should be limited to one fire-extinguish tool, however. This will ensure that any engineer loadout will have at least one repair tool and we won't see chem/extinguish/buff trollout ever again.
I may be able to get behind a kick-vote system, or an auto-ban system after X number of reports depending on how it's implemented. This community is already very clique-ish and a kick-vote system may make it even more so. But, OTOH, it's a way to get around the new players that join with the sole intention to troll, and Muse is very small, so they don't always have the work-power to sort through each report one-by-one. Muse are in between a rock and a hard place on this issue.
