[Squirrelloid]

For what its worth, Sombre has been totally forthright about his end of the situation via IRC, including direct quotations of PMs. So protecting Sombre's privacy seems to be a moot point.

I'm not sure moderators or administrators should be able to claim privacy for decisions made in an official capacity, since those decisions should be open to scrutiny.

No assumptions have been made as to the sequence of events by those of us who talked to Sombre - we got them right from the horse's mouth as it were. The only thing uncertain is what the people on the administrative end were thinking at each step of the process. If those details aren't going to be shared then I think people are rightfully upset because a permanent ban seems to be without just cause from the evidence available, based on the forum's own rules. And while Sombre's stature as one of the primary contributors of new content makes us care quite a bit more than if he were some wet-behind-the-ears poster, the lack of sufficient apparent cause should be worrying regardless of who it is.

Based on the events as they are known to me, should I have been acting in an administrative capacity, I might have temp banned him. I probably wouldn't even have done that. The initial penalty seems to have covered the only real offense he committed. His lack of concern over what amounts to a slap on the wrist from a forum that is at best related to an elective luxury activity should be somewhat expected -- if that lack of concern led to more disruptive behavior than that behavior should have been punished as appropriate. Punishing thoughtcrime seems a bit Orwellian even for a 'privately-owned forum'.