I expect they have adequate legal staff, but I don't think you mean communications law.

I'm not so sure about the legal staff.

I don't think you mean communications law.

I think you're right. What do I mean?

It's actually a bunch of different fields and specialties. To the extent there is a specialty that covers the cross section of laws that typically impact internet application, content, and service providers, we tend to call it "cyberlaw."

Didn't they say something last time around about an appeals process? If so, it could use to be better publicized, and decently transparent (no need to make the whole thing public, but if the person(s) in question wish to discuss it post facto, then there ought not to be prohibitions on them doing so, aside from a requirement that they speak truthfully, of course).

They might have - I don't recall.

However, the (so far as I know) two people who have been banished did not get either warning or appeal.

The appeals should be private, and not spoken about (beyond the mere fact of "I'm appealing this decision") until they're over. Afterwards, of course they should be spoken about.

However, the (so far as I know) two people who have been banished did not get either warning or appeal.

They may not have gotten individual warnings; the climate of oversight in the wake of Strikethrough suggests to me that anyone doing fan[creation] needs to be concerned, especially if any of their characters can be construed to be minors. (Idiotic, many ways. But I neither write nor adjudicate the law.)

But appeal OUGHT to be a standard process, and one that is easy to initiate and conduct. And yes, afterwards, then full disclosure.

I think I have a slightly clearer picture - the two deleted accounts had posted to a specific community, and the community moderator was the one being warned. However, she's at a Harry Potter convention *right now*, and was not checking her emails. She found out while in a panel.

Okay, so yes, a warning was issued (though it should at least have been cc'd to the owners of the actual accounts in question). It would be good to know 6A has a defined appeals process in place. (From descriptions of the actual images, which I didn't see, it's probable that 6A has a very good case for permanent deletion of the accounts. But IMO, the folks in question have the right to be heard, and to speak out afterward.)