I think you're confused, FoR. Let's recap.
Riva posts after a two month (or so) absence.
First 5 or so replies are "eh?"
Ura asks where his cards are (from before the absence) and appends a not-very-nice adjective.
Isty (I think) chimes in.
People start questioning how Riva could have been in Afghanistan and his "kill count".
Riva tries to explain that his brother logged on instead of him.
People are fed up with these alleged lies and want to ban him due to that and his "ripping".
I argue that he shouldn't be banned because of lying or because of his "Afghan tour", and that we (the CPA) were too late in banning him in regards to his ripping; we should have done it when it happened.
People start taking sides, with basically DUke and I for not banning him and everyone else for. (If I left out anyone on the non-banning side, I apologize; this is a a quick recap).
You say this whole discussion is pointless and to just let him post (seeminglu falling on the non-banning side, at least immediately).
To which I replied no, this isn't pointless because someone could have provided new evidence of trades or other banishment worthy material.
And no, it's not good in a PM because I don't have sole say over his banning. And perhaps other silent people who haven't publicly posted their view don't want his banishment, yet if someone publicly posts that they were ripped off, they also would change their mind and perhaps weigh in voting for banishment.
That's the way I interpreted this whole mess.