not that any of you care what i think haha, but i agree, i dont care what position anyone has, you should still provide a demo if you are banning someone. if not, whats to stop you from banning people you just dont like? and how can the checks and balances work if all you are going by is personal accounts… with no tangible proof, there is no way a balance check can work, its just word of mouth. in the future, i think that every admin/council leader/ webmaster/ whoever should have to provide some evidence for the reasoning of a ban. if the process is going to be as fair as possible, the banned person should always be given a chance to have others review his case.
ammendments can be made to constitutions, and in this case i think it should (for future reference).