Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It does though because Froog is painting this as a lynch case. Trial and execution without any proof.
What mistakes were made?
Amelinda said she had been watching them box for some time. They demanded proof and when none was supplied they assumed it was for tinfoil hat reasons. Were they expecting a list of sins written on a golden scroll? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What does the GM have to gain by banning the innocent? If they were wrong, and the evidence supplied by Froog was even somewhat plausible they would likely open the account back up for investigation. This isn't a cover-up for the GM's to save face.
If it walks like a 2boxer and talks like a 2boxer it's probably a 2boxer. |
So it seems you are of the opinion that in this instance, there's no way the GM in question could have made a mistake....
Regardless of your answer I will repeat that "incentive" doesn't play a role. No one is saying she banned an innocent person on purpose. It was likely either a ban that was done with irrefutable evidence or it was a ban done with evidence that, if examined, would be iffy at best - a ban hammer
mistakenly thrown.
IF it was a mistake, at this point it is also likely she is not going to go back and examine the evidence. Like so many others that are often proven wrong, it's easier to deny and dig your heals in defending your stance then it is to actually step back, listen, and admit a mistake was made. Happens ALL the time, in every aspect of life, which is also why I said to Froog that regardless of whether he is guilty or not, it's probably best to stop wasting his energy on this and move on.