Board Thread:The Seven Seas Court/@comment-3112181-20170507140453/@comment-1279322-20170508044027

Johnny Goldtimbers wrote: Lord Andrew Mallace wrote: Switching to - my evidence can't be "proved" but I'm compelled to give my reasonings. My talks with Breasly have been this - personal information WAS leaked and Josh DID contact storm/Breasly inappropriately and on-the-phone, which violates our policy. He was, however, not convicted or charged with being a predator and isn't a "criminal" per se.

Regardless, he violated the policy and a determination was made to keep him banned forever. I would feel wrong undoing that decision with 1: no compelling evidence to do so, and 2: that it's been so long -  both sides arguments are hurt by how long it's been.

So, the fate of Wag lives with Wag. Breasly and Stormwalker leaked their own personal information to the user in question, instead of notifying the administration that Josh had asked for said personal information, etc.

No actions were taken against them. Any exchange of personal information violates our policy. Stormwalker, Breasly, and Josh would be all at fault if handled by a proper administration. It is a blunder by the previous administration. We cannot keep a user banned because of what occurred off-site, and in the private messages of Stormwalker and Breasly.

My opinion still stands that the user should be unbanned and given a second chance.

they did notify the admins tho

or at least reported it to someone

otherwise the request/ban wouldn't have even happened

if they leaked their information off-site, then by that logic, there's no reason to even bring it up or why action should have been taken against them

josh wasn't just banned because he requested personal information on the wiki, or wherever

he was banned because he was using the wiki to get to people, get in close with them, and extract personal information

i mean, if using the wiki to look for victims doesn't warrant a ban

you just created a nice, pretty loophole