Yeah the point is less about whether he did anything wrong, maybe he did, maybe he didn't - the evidence looks shaky as all fuck, bizarrely presented, she was an adult so 'grooming' is basically just flirting? But who knows, I don't know the guy. I certainly wouldn't regard those tweets as passing the threshold of credibility though.
The point is more that they've painted themselves into a corner with well established discussion rules on accusations, i.e. that they are believed 100% until proven otherwise. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts. So now they either apply that to Stinkles and surely that means he is banned for life and Halo is collateral damage...or they do what they did, which is to lock discussion and wait for more evidence, which looks like breathtaking hypocrisy, undermines their whole approach hitherto and de-legitimises the raison d'etre of the genesis of the site, which was to get out from under an evil sex criminal based on flimsy hearsay evidence. If they can't apply teh same standard they wanted from Neogaf back then, to Stinkles now, then what is the site for?