In fairness, I wasn't warned for that thread, but I'm sure if I posted another, asking a related question, I would be.
Keelah's response was pretty much the same bs they keep saying when someone asks about how they determine that. "It has to be apparent."
Apparent to whom? And what defines apparent? And since when does apparent = beyond a doubt?
Finally, why are they so adamant to refuse hearing out evidence of innocence.
In the case of Walsh, per Xanth (who said he has seen the email from admin himself), Walsh was banned for operating multiple nations, and when Walsh offered to provide evidence the nations were operated by two separate people, he was apparently (see - apparent =/= certainty because I have not seen the communications myself) told he had to wait 6 months to appeal the ban.