I think what people will view as fair, or not fair, depends on what side of the issue it is that they stand. The actions, reactions, and non-actions are everyday occurrences in everyday life, and are not exclusive to WoW or something that is WoW related. Whether or not people see the actions of any parties involved to be justifiable to them, is besides the point. Emotional responses are the usual way to express what side you are on, and emotional responses are generally the responses that sway a point of view in one or another direction, the logicical and reasoned responses typically fail, imo, due to the lack of emotion the reader (or audience, if you will) gets from it (logic doesn't stick in one's mind like emotion does).
Some of this discussion seems to hit every logical point head on, yet gets overlooked or dismissed as being absurd. This brings the person that made the points try harder, to make these points stick, and the end result looks as though it's a QQ fest of people out for their own interests, when this couldn't be farther from the truth. This isn't exclusive to one side of the issue or the other, it's both sides, trying to persuade the other that their way is the right way and it should just be accepted and all parties agree and have a slumber party... forgetting about the personal nature in which some of the points were delivered.
Now, to me, what made this all the more frustrating, were the ones who made their best efforts to stop the efforts of those who wanted to discuss the changes in policy, and attempt to reverse the descision to implement the policy. They had no personal interest, so they said, whether the policy stayed or went away. They had no opinion, so they said, other than you weren't allowed an opinion... "because Blizzard said so" should be good enough. People who brought no substance what-so-ever, were trying to strongarm people into dropping the discussion, and for no apparent reason, other than "because Blizzard said so".
So, now there are a number of people who 'used to be' valuable members of the community, who simply have no interest in continuing that service that they were happy to provide, for no compensation, due to lack of acknowledgement by Blizzard. There are those who did it for compensation, that no longer have a motivation to continue. There are also those who continue, that had no interest in the issue at all, or felt the whole issue was an overreaction. *There also 'seems' to be a few new people who are attempting to serve the community -because- of the attention this drew to the issue, and they see an opportunity to help.
I think it's way too early to see how much of an effect this will have on Blizzard, but unless some people change their mind (or heart), and other newer people continue to learn and help out, then one can only assume that the negative effects will greatly outweigh the positive.
And even though I'm not an author, I still feel the policy, the method in which the policy was delivered, the "discussion" about the policy by both sides, and the apparent lack of interest to join in the discussion.. on ANY level, by Blizzard, has left me feeling... (self edit).
I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to rehash this whole episode, because it's not. It's just a simple minded observation that I felt I 'needed' to share, and my whole point is that, imo, none of -us- were right or wrong (those of us that had a point to make, other than "because Blizzard said so"), but just that some things are almost impossible for everyone to agree on, 100%.
And a secondary point: I was banned and had posts wiped, I really don't see a huge impact in one way or the other. However, when people such as Cogwheel, have their posts wiped, it makes no sense to me (yeah, it -might- be exactly how the ban process -works-, but imo, that's a poor excuse) to wipe the ability of someone that has helped the community so much from things they have contributed in the past. And for the comment of "former MVP should be treated more 'harshly'" (paraphrased, and the post was on the official forums, iirc), no one should be treated any differently than the next, in this context at least. In most cultures, the opposite would be true, ie. if a U.S. Representative were to be charged with speeding, 9 out of 10 times they would receive a lesser punishment than the average Joe. I'm not saying it's -right-, but to implement a harsher punishment (or lesser punishment) because someone was a valued member of a community is just mind boggling, to me. I'm not saying -don't- punish them, just that punishment should be equal to everyone else.
end