I see jitspoe has appointed himself as the lone internet security force for the community.
Clearly, hijacking accounts is not an acceptable behavior by any means, but I also think it's unacceptable (in obviously different regards) for jitspoe to continue to alter, change, and create rule enforcement at his will.
In this particular situation -- the _user_ (at least in my opinion) should be the one ultimately responsible for keeping their online passwords and identity secure, be it a DP, messenger, or even online bank account.
I think at the very least you should formalize the fact that you are using the global ban feature at your own disposal, without any set guidelines – AND (more importantly) that it is a tool for punishing ANY potential offense, and not just cheating within the game (which was at least my original understanding, perhaps I am misinformed as I have not researched the issue).
Especially with the new ideas you have introduced such as allowing people to “pay off” ban times with actual REAL money; it certainly seems like it would increase the potential for less opaque situations (framing/etc.).
It just feels to me to start to border the line of too much control, perhaps we should at least look into having some kind of board or something where decisions such as these are not made by any one person, but rather a group.
After all, is it not in your own personal interest to ban more liberally now that you have instituted a payment method to reduce ban time?
Also, this raises some more “gray” issues as to what is a punishable offense. IRC impersonation, channel takeovers, personal threats, etc. Do not all these things also directly affect members of the community?
Just to restate my view, I am not arguing that the global ban should be removed in this particular instance. I am simply stating that I think the community would be best served to have a more formal interpretation of the “community laws,” if the global ban system is going to be used for reasons other than cheating.
