clapper011 wrote:so, let me get this straight.... you feel that all those that are website banned (with very good reason) should be able to open up another account (and act differently then the first account to get people on her/his side) (and with in only a MONTH of that website ban) should have a more lenient punishment? Well, what would the purpose of a website ban be for then?.......sorry, but I thought scarlet was a nice caring and sincere person too... But delia WAS NOT however. Rules are in place for a reason.
Well, I found a thread very similar to this one, dedicated to deliaselene, from way back.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=78860&p=1869584&hilit=+deliaselene#p1869584I think somebody already said something about this, but what
is the reason for all the sneaky mysteriousness here? It seems to me that if a member is banned, a person should be able to go to the C&A forum and find out why. So if they were never reported there and banned through higher channels (as seems to be the case here), then someone could make a very quick little page explaining the basic infraction, and then move it into closed cases. It
sounds like it would just be more work for the staff, but probably it would end up being less, because it would avoid threads like these where people have to be kept from flaming. At the very least, when a thread like this (or the above one that I linked to) comes up, somebody in the know could go ahead and give a little summary. The way it is, people get all conspiracy-theoried, and I don't blame them!
Clapper has provided a good reason for Scalet's ban, but it hinges completely on there being a good reason for Deliaselene's ban. All we have are hints that it was justified, and a couple of very strange remarks about stirring things up (and perving, which seems totally ridiculous to me). So Clapper, would you mind indulging us by giving a quick overview of what caused Deliaselene's original ban? Seems to me that would probably satisfy most of the crowd.