[Salsaccino]

My questions are regarding transparency. Ultimately, the announcement made only covers the fact that doxxing cases will be looked at retroactively and handled accordingly. But in general there have been other mentions of extreme cases that will have simply gotten lost in the winding passage of a really, really busy chat.

Does the GM team have any intention of a supplementary message open to let people know that this also applicable to other extreme offenses from the past? Something that's easily seen and not locked behind a lot of scrolling, word of mouth, and a search function (which would require knowing about it anyway). Can some examples be provided of what the GM considered a hypothetical extreme offense so people are able to easily understand what isn't and isn't going to be dug up, placed officially and at the forefront, so that restless concerns about the past can be put away, while also giving people who might have a case and not realise it the push they need to realise 'hey, maybe I should revisit this'? Because ultimately outside of the very obvious doxxing, and the vaguely mentioned financial exploitation, I am super unsure of just what the running definition for this is going to be.

Will this come to the site with the rules on it, and be enshrined? Because I'll be honest, we've had awkward run-ins with hidden rules before, and it's my full belief that official things like this SHOULD make it onto that site. It really sucks when you look at the rules and don't realise you're still missing information.

If I'm not mistaken, ban appeals and ban re-evaluations have always been something that people were open to doing. All it takes is a modmail with your concerns and we as the GM team can address them. One can easily make a request that a ban be either appealed or re-evaluated... but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. 

As I've said multiple times now, any case can be re-evaluated but it's only going to be similarly extreme cases like this one that are going to see any real action taken. Especially when there is new evidence laid out on the table for us to review and look over. This has even happened before in the case of Detty, in which there was outcry the ban was too short. Victims came forward with new evidence that assisted us in ensuring justice was carried out properly. 

This is not a new concept, this is just the first time a ban this old has been re-evaluated in this manner. There is no attempts on our part to hide this fact or make this out to be a "Hah, Gotcha!" moment. All bans can be re-evaluated, but there is no guarantee any further action will be taken. It's the same way for ban appeals, and functionally works the same.