QUOTE(jorge @ Sun 18th November 2007, 6:41pm)
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:09am)
Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?
Yes, she brought Poetlister and Runcorn up as an example.
QUOTE
:::It strikes me that this was a similar situation as what happened with Melsaran, Evidence was uncovered as part of an investigation and it was reported to ArbCom. However, given the potentially confidential nature of the evidence and the fact that there was no ongoing disruption, would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block, specifically stating that they were doing so for the ArbCom, based on confidential evidence, as that is part of the reason ArbCom exists (to deal with such evidence)? Mr.Z-man
::::You're right, and I realize that now. Will do. That was how we handled
Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance. Durova Charge!
Ah.
Yes.The lesson learned here (by our heroine) is
procedural, not moral.
Next time, Durova is to
politic better before blocking irrationally, so Arbcom does the banning, based on her false evidence. In this manner, there is no drama (also known as:
no embarassing, annoying questions of judgement ) when the hapless innocent person is banned indefinitely on false evidence.
I rest my case.
Durova for Arbcom! She'll be far better placed to get their unanimous approval if she is she's on the Committee. Less drama, more productive banning. Bravo!
This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: