About this:
That's a misinterpretation, in my view. The employee referred to is me, and here is where I discussed the case in question:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...er-or-suspension.1107245/page-24#post-7170517
Yes, Rob and I both felt the website (which promoted rape) was immoral – disturbingly so. But the site's immorality, as such, was NOT the basis of Epik's decision. Rather, the website itself
endorsed a crime. Moreover, endorsing that crime was not incidental to the site – some wayward paragraph in a blog post or stray comment by a user. Instead, endorsing that crime was the site's raison d'être. In other words, the site's explicit theme and purpose was 100% devoted to promoting a crime.
Illegality – that was the reason Rob gave when ordering the domain be deleted. And we were able to cite Epik's TOS to support that decision. I'm not white-washing this case whatsoever. In fact, for the sake of accuracy, I'm referring to the transcript of the chat where the decision was made. Morality was not even discussed because the nature of such a site is so obviously immoral. I did most of the talking, since I'm verbose and was using a laptop whereas Rob was succinct, apparently using a mobile phone. Direct quotes:
"If it is non-lawful content, it comes down"
"Right,down it goes"
"Delete it"
I replied, "Deleted", to which Rob responded:
"Works. Rape is by definition illegal so easy one."
Nothing meaningful has been left out of Rob's side of the discussion. Ordinarily I would not quote an internal Epik discussion, but I want this issue to be crystal clear. This is not true:
Even if you believe that, it is certainly true that the case referenced above cannot be cited as evidence banning a domain on moral grounds. That is refuted by the actual transcript of the conversation between me and Rob where the decision was made.
This concern is unwarranted, based on my experience at Epik during the past 2 years:
During the past 2 years, virtually all abuse cases or decisions about suspending a domain went through me. Whenever there was a judgment call, I had a 1-on-1 conversation with Rob. So I do know what I'm talking about based on real experience.
In principle and in practice, the criterion has been legality, not morality. Epik has erred on the side of legal due process, even when it is frustrating and time-consuming or when it causes some public attacks (e.g. pharmaceutical lobbyists like LegitScript).