What I find interesting is they are all whinning and crying about disenfranchisement. Apparently these players do not know, or do not care about the actual definition of the term. Their votes were not less effective, they were not blocked. Their votes were counted, served their purpose, and successfully elected their chosen delegate to office.

What happened was AFTER the votes were counted, and AFTER the delegate became the official Chairman to be sworn in once CSM 7 started. The delegate himself, through his OWN actions, and by his own admission, stepped down from the position of CSM 7 chairman/member. This is no different than a US elected president stepping down prior to being sworn into office for actions he committed. The votes were counted, the person was successfully elected.

Your votes were not made less effective, you were not blocked from being able to vote. The person you voted for committed immoral, unethical, and via violation of the TOS and EULA illegal actions, that resulted in his account being banned, and after some personal reflection, resigned from his elected position. Under a normal democratic society, the spot would be filled by the Vice President, or in this case, the person with the next highest amount of votes, and every position from there down filled by the person below it, and the final spot filled by the person with the highest number of votes that did not make the original CSM 7 panel.

Instead of complaining about and trying to cry "disenfranchisement", how about you condemn the person who failed to maintain a professional decorum and failed to represent his constituents in a moral, ethical, and professional manner.