While you have your opinion I believe the other side did not see it as such, which would explain the exchange that occurred that was more or less did not need to occur.
Question & Answers is there for a reason, why not use it? Yes, the forum is the place to discuss the issue, but put it in Question board not in the same as the cases. After the verdict what good is it commenting as such has been done?
I don't believe Eirikr had any ill will toward Jason, but it can be interpreted differently concerning your opinions and beliefs and stance on the matter. Referencing Eirkir above (bolded), those such comments can be referred to the magistrates via private message. Not posted after the verdict.
The Verdict is enough is it not? If the parties are satisfied or unsatisfied, then it is what it is. Questions, comments, and discussion can happen in the question board. Separate board are there for a reason, I say let's use them.
For my own understanding, what do you believe to be a matter of perspective? The assertion that the case was clear cut or the belief that the discussion that occurred was productive?
As far as the case goes, it really was clear cut: The only evidence is that letter (and whatever the Magistrates dug up in their inquiry) and his testimonial. It's very clear why the letter was in bad taste, the disagreement comes at the point of whether it was intentional or accidental... In which case, it's not my place to try to prove one or the other unless I really am trying to bury him.
Now, as for the actual discussion that unfolded, I'm forced to consider the alternative when determining if it was productive or not. What you don't know is that, prior to the verdict being posted, I had talked to both Indirik and Geronus about the topic at hand. I don't want to speak for them, but what I will say is that I felt that if the issue hadn't been part of the verdict, a new case would be the right method of resolving the matter. (Again, let me be very careful in saying that
neither Indirik nor Geronus explicitly told me that I should make a case. I reached that conclusion myself.) If we take the path you are suggesting,
I would never have spoken to Jason before opening the case. The case would have been up right now. The point that I was trying to stress in the section you highlighted was that, from the sound of his posts, Jason would have felt persecuted, regardless of the findings.
In my mind, it's hard to argue that the discussion, which prevented a second, stress-causing (for Jason), case was not productive. Maybe the tone could have been nicer, sure, but that's not what your suggestion would change.
I can see other ways to interpret what you've presented in this most recent post, so forgive me if I just ran along a completely incorrect tangent. I'm a technical communicator by trade, so I'm pretty dedicated to reaching clarity at some point.
I just want to understand where we're each coming from.
