I strongly disagree that redirecting the website of Desert Storm disrupts the security of the zone itself, and here is why:   When you sell a domain name, the information from the server that is registered to that domain name does not go with it. All it is is re-registering the name to a different IP/server. In this case, schitt sold his domain name to a dutch magazine. He did not sell the contents, nor willingly gave access to the information (whether it be names/aliases, passwords, etc.) contained in the server that used the dszone.net name. Basically what I'm saying is that you can still have access to the actual server that hosted the website and used that domain name.   According to one part of the SSC netban policy which reads:   "Security - Disrupting or attempting to disrupt the security of the billing server, any SSC zone or server. Examples include flooding servers or players, spreading knowledge of how to disrupt security, -unauthorized access to the billing or zone servers, stealing passwords, impersonating SSC Zones, or distributing confidential information about servers or players. Maximum 30 day first offence net ban for a threat to disrupt security."   one of these infractions would entail a network ban. Based on what was discussed and the information supplied here, schitt did not do the following:   - flood servers or players   - spread knowledge of how to disrupt security   - access or allowed access to the billing or zone server unauthorized (he sold the domain name, and not the actual server that held the contents for the website)   - steal, or allowed opportunity to steal passwords   - impersonate any SSC Zone   - distribute confidential information about servers or players (as he only sold the domain).    Bottom line, schitt did not disrupt the "security" of the zone, Desert Storm, or its players and staff.