Sanction Reviews

[Vigilia.Procuratio]

 
So what you're saying is that if there's a slight possibility somebody's innocent, they should instead be sanctioned because of the greater chance that they're guilty? If the accused comes forward proclaiming that very slight chance of innocence then it must be eliminated. Simply saying "No, you're wrong" just isn't good enough; proof must be provided.

I think the Administrators will know exactly which case I'm referring to here and I still have no idea as to what the poor sod has been done for. Either he hasn't told the full story or the staff have not told us what actually happened. All we see are references to the rule in question and nothing as to what the player actually did to breach that rule. This happens a lot.

I don't want to know what profanity somebody wrote, I don't want to know what cheat somebody might have abused, but I do want to know what somebody has done wrong when there is quite clearly a serious lack of evidence to prove their guilt.

[EDIT] Sorry Xelon, missed your reply there.

I think my main point here is that the community in general is left in the lurch. I just don't know what somebody's actually done half of the time so I don't know whether to trust the decision and not the offender, or vice-versa.