Funcom Communications
Below are links, broken down by date, to content taken from a thread in private forums started on August 13th after the bans, as players tried to piece together the reason for the suspension
Player comment is in blue and indented, so the reader may skip and just read official comment from FC employees. A summary is given below.
In short, a conclusion that fits all of available information is that when the first base in TLR went to 75%, it was petitioned as being deliberate and due in some way to swapping organisations. Over 3 hours later, swapping orgs was witnessed at the 6th consecutive tower war in SAV, misunderstood as an attempt to circumvent the 75%, and everyone present suspended.
This could be considered a generous conclusion given clear ignorance of game mechanics by the Support Manager, the inability of Funcom to reproduce on Test the alleged exploit when apparently they "have all the facts", the conflicting information over when the alleged exploit even happened, and the changes in information given by FC when challenged over inconsistencies.
To compound the confusion, Funcom's Support Manager defined "guilt as it is assessed in the exploit" to be as tenuous as "being present, or simply being grouped with the player" and "being involved however tangentially". In complete opposition to the public stance of Funcom's Community Manager; "Those involved knew exactly what they were doing. No bugs, no ambiguity, no 'grey areas'." Indeed, it could be surmised that the public stance made any review of the suspensions too high a cost in terms of credibility.
Funcom have further failed their customers by wilfully misleading and allowing the community to misunderstand their internal definitions of guilt (as communicated privately) with contradictory public statement, and leaving names of those suspended un-moderated and open to flames and personal accusation, neglecting their own forum guidelines.