1. They also have been known to make ex post facto rulings, often with suspensions involved. I'm sure they probably borrowed whatever you are referring to from the same place. I get it. Might makes right. I can accept that, but to call it fair and rooted in law is Michael Jackson ignorant.
2. I'm not critiquing the staff here. I can understand that they have little time to deal with these types of investigations. But when they blanket ban people involved in transactions with "known" rmters, you can be rest assured that many innocent people got associated with it. This of course was by design. They then took petitions from people to settle whether or not they were in fact not guilty of anything. There are some people however that have had a hard time providing an explanation of what was traded and for how much, etc, for trades that happened months ago. Naturally I assume it was their fault for not keeping detailed logs of every purchase, one instance I know of involves a meager 4,000. It's absurd.
Dolic
|