Indeed they admitted this has been ongoing for a while:
If not for Krinklemess, we may still be living under the impression that bans were reviewed by two staff before being implemented for who knows how long, seeing how IP2 has a history of silence unless needed, and inaction/slow action unless it affects customer purchases.
Ref. “at least they are communicating about it transparently and apologetically”
This is pretty much the usual conclusion of every cycle when things like this blow up in their face (bigger incident = bigger apology/‘transparency’ post), and then the new cycle begins where things are ignored/swept under the rug/usual QA.
So yes, surely we want to encourage more transparency et al, but it’s also important to acknowledge the history of these iterations, so especially new customers don’t spend based on misplaced expectations.
