It's not a copy of TORC. It is what we make of it, and we (if I may humbly say) are what made TORC great. ... Steve's statement on B77 had two purposes: 1. To make people aware of what B77 was, as opposed to any preconceived notions. 2. To tell people exactly what happened last weekend. ... It was kind of an emergency, and I think it's appropriate for this situation.
I know that it's the same people who can't help but do what they have done before. But if you are so intent on being different then it would be a good idea to change. But this is a minor matter and not of concern anyway.
It is far more important that it be made clear that the statement is not the idea of everybody on the board (and whose idea was it anyway to make the members list public on TORC? That's an invitation for banning! Shows frankness, but wasn't a wise move.). I don't think that the way it is now it will improve the situation and makethe admins of TORC make any decisions you will be happy with. Revision is necessary - but by the time you get to it, it will be too late because it has probably encouraged more animosity.
It would have been better (or, it will be better once a new version is written after a decision has been made by whoever, Ted etc.) to not name TORC at all in the statement. Keep it neutral. the ones who know what it is about will know who's meant. Anybody who has nothing to do with it won't really miss out on much and shouldn't be bothered with it. And people who join might feel unwelcome in such an environemnt that is so anti-TORC.
It being an emergency does not excuse such a hostile statement. And why wasn't it enough to talk about the problems amongst yourselves in private and not making it public? It would have been over and done with, nobody would have had to bother with any more problems. I can assure you that the statement wasn't helpful.
Point 1 (as you listed above) would have been achieved well enough without mentioning TORC explicitly and giving so many details. To point 2: I've heard so many details by now I am getting confused. "He said this, and he said that, then we said this ...." And it all proves nothing either - it is impossible to take sides judging from the details. I have the impression that neither side is being very objective and telling us everything anyway. I am sure there is some misquoting going on too. And most importantly: nobody is trying very hard to keep emotions out of it (a little effort has been put into it, but not nearly enough to be convincing). This is always a mistake when dealing with such important matters involving many people, and especially when you want to make a public announcement.