Right. That is exactly what you are doing.
No. What you hear is a bunch of people saying, "We know he was harassed. We saw some of it, he told us about more."
That's a very different thing that a bunch of people just saying, "He's such a nice guy! Why don't you just go easy on him?"
If you can't see that, then I seriously question your ability to tell useful evidence from useless.
Remember, Vellos, this isn't a US court of law. There's no chain of custody, and no rigorous standards of evidence. It is not anathema to take into account what one knows of the character of a given person, whether they be complainant, accused, or witness, in determining how to weigh their testimony.
Well if you saw some of it, then show it. I don't care if you're a dev. Witnesses are also notoriously unreliable, as has been proven time and again by studies into witness testimony. Why should we trust someone who doesn't have any evidence besides saying "It didn't happen like that, I swear." If that's the step we took when someone is using multi abuse, we wouldn't have caught that player in Aurvandil (eventually).
This is getting ridiculous, if we start basing things in this manner, it'll become like astroempires. And trust me, that's the last thing you want. Seriously, this trial is starting to sound like a parade of excuses. First it was "We don't have the right to police outside of this site." Now it's becoming "Evidence doesn't matter."
It is in every Judge's , or Magistrates job to act with his own logic when a case doesn't belong to black or white,because rules are black and white.
When the case itself is questionable, the rules are loose at vital points concerning the case,there is lack of evidence by both sides in order to enforce their statements, then we are called to think out of the box as well.
This how law works and the product of the law is law itself.
Except, surprise, we do have evidence. Against Kyle. I'm sorry if you don't like that and think he's a great guy. Well that's just swell. Why don't we let someone else order people not to go to a tournament. I mean, he's such a good guy, he should be allowed to get away with it.
I'm sorry, but this is starting to go down the slippery slope that is denial.
I should note that while I have spoken up on Kyle's behalf, I am entirely neutral on the subject of whether any punishment is warranted in this case.
I just think that if Kyle is punished, those who goaded him continually for the joy of seeing him lash out should be punished more severely.
And yes, I recognize that this means that Kyle must report them and provide evidence himself.
And whatever happened to this Anaris? You seem to be very hypocritical in your posts regarding being "neutral" in regards to whether punishment is warranted in this case. If you want to argue that he was harassed, well why don't you open, I don't know, a report against the people who did so. I'm sure that would be very helpful in showing that he was, in fact, harassed, rather than this being a group of people supporting someone by spitting in the face of evidence.
And so what if this isn't a court of actual law, it should still have actual standards regarding what is admissible and what is just the words of someone who has no proof. If we went about things like you wish them to be, I could just gather a group of my friends, create an incident, and have them support me with testimony about how the other side was doing worse stuff and I just responded. Oh, so many people are
saying that I am not to blame, so I am most definitely innocent. See how much of a slippery slope that is? We've already set a precedent that whether or not someone is apologetic (which Kyle most definitely appears not to be) they still broke a rule, and breaking rules have consequences.
