Let's say you make an association, and it aims to address errors in records that are supposed to detail wrongdoing. Naturally the same scrutiny extends to reports, right?
Let's say you have two sides that are at odds. However, they both recount things differently or interpret the same events differently. You would ask for proof, right?
My question for a certain @[email protected] is, do you have any smoking guns? All I see are arguments over pedantic details and claims where the so-called evidence is no more conclusive than the verdict at the beginning of 12 Angry Men (or My Cousin Vinny if you want to use a more fun example).
Some people have complained of others going around reporting everything they say in certain communities as a way to get them banned everywhere, often depending on the mods' carelessness over relevance or investigation.
Especially when retaliation (and backbiting) is involved that shows all this wasn't taken well (retaliation aimed at anyone who follows their criteria of who is who and which depends on the idea that their sources are always honest when they aren't), I arguably can't dissuade you from positing something there is definitively proof of, complete with a conversation attached (one that is disprovable) about who banned who or whether the motives given are always honest, as well as gossip attached about being "out of one's damn mind" (for what? Debating semantics?) and "having to be committing some kind of offense" based on "past behavior" (arguably spoken like anyone involved has committed any "offenses" or like they come ready to think the worse when they walk into the situation, which undermines conversations about bad faith).
Can I be a mod please?
Why are you asking?