Since I have now read Bsh1’s public statement and the Wylted Report, I think I am informed enough to post my thoughts.
Thoughts on TheHammer: Hammer was banned over a joke. Yes, he did falsify evidence, and that was wrong of him to do. However, I don’t think the offense was worthy of a perma-ban. Bsh1 should consider motivation. Hammer made the thread as a joke. He likely only falsified evidence to save himself from being banned over a joke. I think Hammer’s ban should’ve only been temporary.
Thoughts on Bsh1: My only problem is his perma-ban of Hammer. Whether the offense is excessive trolling or a personal attack, Hammer, to my knowledge, is a first time offender who even confessed and apologized for his actions.
Thoughts on Wylted: A temp ban was given to Wylted. I am fine with that. He committed an offense by campaigning for Supa against site rules.
Thoughts on Virtuoso: Virtuoso actively participated in a campaigning effort against site rules, since he is a mod, he has no grounds for an ignorance plea. He claims it would have not changed his votes, but contrary evidence has emerged. In the Wylted Report, which was confirmed by Bsh1, Virtuoso replied to Wylted’s campaign with, “I’ll think about it.”, indicating that it did affect his decision. Furthermore, he did not report it to Bsh1 when he should have. Considering this, especially the latter, it think it is fair for. Virtuoso to be removed from his position as a mod.
Thoughts on everyone else: No evidence to show anyone else knew about the “No campaigning” rule and willfully campaigned for Supa, and some didn’t even know about the campaign in the first place. I think Bsh1 is correct in not banning anyone else.