I like the decision in part
To me it comes down to facts and intent.
1) Name - facts sound clear - he didn't use his name - intent? Was there an intent to deceive - based on the fact that he didn't (deceive) anyone and did put his name in at some point this seems like good reason for a second chance on the boards with a public apology (as decided).
2) BST transaction - Are the facts clear? Did he admit to knowing there was no crack and just had buyers remorse? If so, I would support a time-limited (3 month, 6 month?) ban from the BST. If it's not clear that it was buyers remorse and could have been an honest mistake then I think the decision as made stands.
|