[Seeker]

For those asking to see more evidence, I get it, but we really can't. The people in question don't want to be attacked anymore. We don't feel right exposing them.
But as we can't show the evidence, you have to at least see that it seems unlikely that 4 admins, who don't particularly interact often, and dinkleberg would come to a unanimous decision based off anything but tangible evidence.

I'll be that guy and throw out and say how can we know it was unanimous when all of those people, who technically aren't supposed to have a vote due to inactivity, aren't around to even say "yeah this is our decision"?

Hell, we just have to trust YOU saying Dink said to go ahead with it. I haven't talked to him in over 2 years. This is where the transparency and lack of trust in the TTT side comes from. No ones here and we just have YOU, Gabe and a bunch of inactives we don't see. At least Gabe goes on to play and interact. With people.

It's disheartening for veteran players to watch, especially when the people involved can't say how it went down cause they don't know either. Not even a "yeah we talked and I get it"

You say there would be a chance to reduce the ban based on community feed back. Is this your way of saying this was a trial run? Or that NOW that you're realizing everyone, even people not involved, staff, people involved in making the decision (some thought to be strong armed into agreeing), are flipping on it saying it was bad?

Basically "oh shit this is a huge dumpster fire how the hell do I fix this" kind of scenario. And the solution is:

1. Point out the ban is temporary
2. Say you're considering altering the verdict based on community feedback

So what was the original plan then? You clearly had more options you could have utilized if you're going to lessen the punishment if community backlash is affecting your decision this much.