2 replies to this topic

[Domine Nox]

I asked the question in the now closed thread about the Trollympics (hope I spelled that correctly), but it was not answered before talk turned to Gerhart and the thread was subsequently closed for people venturing off topic.

So I am starting a new thread to pose my question once again, and hopefully be answered, even if it is simply by PM that is fine by me.

In reading the list of bans, I had questioned the ban of Hudson. Because the others most certainly had gone the route of being ban, and some of those I think even wanted or expected the resulting action. Hudson however was listed as having his false embezzlement claim and flaming/baiting. The reason I question his ban is because I felt his flaming was no more overly prevalent than some other members of the community that are not being reviewed for ban, and so am curious as to how he made the list, unless his false claim shot him tremendously up the list? Which if that's the case, I feel that's a tad severe, but that's simply my opinion.

So if that one members status could be addressed or cleared up from my perspective I would greatly appreciate it.

[CruciasNZ]

You'll get an answer sometime in the next 24-36 hours (timezone dependent), since it was a voted decision by Council, the reply will be issued jointly by them after we all have a chance to discuss it.

If you don't want to have to constantly check for replies, hit subscribe for this thread and the site will automatically inform you of the reply. To prevent hijacking, I'll lock this thread until the reply you seek is available.

[Zero]

@Nox, In response to your unanswered question.

The flaming/baiting on it's own would have put him on the warning list as opposed to the banning list. However, The Council decided that incredibly personal and malicious false accusations/insults against any individual should get the poster banned; this applies in Hudson's case, but also in the theoretical future case of severe racial hatred for example. The Council decided that the combination more than warranted a ban and acted accordingly.

While we could have simplified the announcement by only mentioning the accusations, he did also participate in the flaming and baiting mentioned. Since the post was constructed to explain the reasoning, it would have been incomplete if it had not mentioned all reasons put forward during the debate.

-Inner Council