pcw27, frankly, I find this offensive.
The question of whether OJ Simpson is or is not a murderer rests in the hard facts of the matter: Was he the person who wielded the weapon that slew his wife?
The facts of this matter are not in doubt: we know that Enoch promoted Jonsu, then demoted himself, and that Jonsu had persuaded him to do this.
What you find to be in doubt is whether that is an abuse, and that rests not in some murky unknowable territory where everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's, but in a relatively cut-and-dried and logical analysis of the situation.
Did either Enoch or Jonsu exploit a known bug in the game code? No.
Did either Enoch or Jonsu exploit a bug in the game code that was not previously known? No.
Did either Enoch or Jonsu break one or more of the Rules and Policies laid down by Tom? No.
Has Jonsu, in fact, done anything since gaining power that would, in and of itself (that is, ignoring the fact that it is Jonsu doing it), ruin the fun of those in SA? I don't have hard evidence on this, but I'm strongly inclined to say "No" again, because if she had, I bet I would have heard about it.
You see, pcw27, the definition of an abuse is not "some action that really upsets me or ruins my fun in the game." You have to actually define what is being abused.
I recognize that the actions taken here upset a great many people, and the dev team is, in fact, discussing what we might be able to do to prevent something like this from happening again without some clear way for the "true" faithful to kick out the pretender and get things back to whatever they consider normal. But that's a long way from saying that this was an abuse that needs to be punished.
You came to concluded that the action was fine. I suspect that if a magistrate case had been opened, the opposite verdict would have been reached.
I don't care what the GMs say, I've often held their applications and interpretations of the rules to be arbitrary and illogical. The GMs can repeat that this action was fine as many times as they want, it'd still be a social contract violation in my eyes.
You may consider that it was intended that religion leaders have total power, but I do not consider it normal intended behavior that an enemy of a religion can come infiltrate it and replace the whole religion leadership with people bent on its destruction.
