If you're going to list 'members who have not spoken because they didn't wish to or are uninterested' as accounts that justify your cause, you're not going to get very far. So far, I see manly yourself opposed to Jesin's innocence. And mostly it looks as if you you're blaming him for getting hacked and causing you work, and so you wish that he would apologize for getting hacked. Correct? In no way am I saying you're wrong for wishing that Jesin be apologetic and whatnot, but still, historical evidence (of his character) overwhelmingly favors his innocence in this case. I guess he should apologize and be reinstated. However, if I was him... I'd be slow to apologize for being framed.
No, I am blaming him for either being the perpetrator or for allowing someone else to gain control of his account. The concepts of responsibility and duty of care seem remote to you.
It is not dramatic to point out this could have destroyed this forum for good: if it was not for URLJet's superlative efforts: we could not have regained control of the admin panel; the technician couldn't have banned Jesin from the database before we regained control; and they wouldn't have put in a back-up.
And the point is:
they didn't have to do this. They are responsible for hosting and not the maintenance of any of the thousands of forums they host; they could have just said '
tough luck, you see to your own forum'. And if they chosen, taken the forum away to protect their shared-hosting server.
And mainly, if, as some hosts might, they had said they will do all this but demanded a hefty fee, then it might have been easier to refuse that fee and leave the place dead in the hands of the attacker. Instead they did all this from kindness.
I am not going to pretend that this would be very important on the scheme of things: active members would be sad at the loss of the community for a month, then drift off to find new forums; but it would be a pity for all the posts etc. to be gone forever. As one day they will, but some of us would prefer that day to be delayed...
As for this thread,
Internal Affairs are the least liked of police departments: and when they investigate and accuse some officer all the rest clam up, defend that officer on grounds that he is well-liked, and reject all accusations. As one commentator here put it, 'cronyism'.
To get away from the main point that it was
one particular admin account used to wreak havoc on the forum, and that name was the only name to be seen on the day, in favour of popular sentimental regard for the owner of that admin account appears perverse.
As was said privately elsewhere, 'I'm curious why you would prefer the explanation that he was obviously framed to the point of fact that every admin is responsible for their own password --- since admin powers are destructive.'
Claverhouse
)
