"banned for abuse" is a general statement the covers a lot of ground and is open to interpretation.
the point of this topic is not necessarily about itude, but how cc handles things. so, yes, i think more detail is needed when people are muted or banned.
Do we really need transparency in this particular case?
I (more than) half expect Itude is enjoying this. He gets to play the martyr, and even if half of him isn't playing, and he is hurt, he gains a cause to entertain himself... in fact I think this outcome is positive enough for him that he probably practically dared them to do it... so they did it. Ok. He can end it immediately. 6 month bans have always been a joke. All they want is an email.
this instance with iturd is just an example. rjc's post #51 is, unfortunately, accurate.
IF cc were transparent about why people are muted or banned, people like itude do not get to play martyr. and if cc makes a mistake, they should just own up to it.
It says he was banned for abuse (as opposed to cheating)... do you really need more detail, and is that really so hard to imagine?
If I had an account closed for abuse would it really be hard to imagine? No, it would just be, ok llama, sober up and apologize via email and that would be the end of it.