| 1 |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by having the |
| 4 |
> comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible for: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically serving as a |
| 7 |
> go-between. This preserves the anonymity, but also allows the "accused" to |
| 8 |
> rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may have been taken |
| 9 |
> out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Certainly Comrel ought to investigate the validity of any testimony, |
| 12 |
especially things like PM logs or such which are easily tampered with. |
| 13 |
That might include asking the accused for their own logs, or simply |
| 14 |
discounting any evidence like this that isn't backed by multiple |
| 15 |
people (maybe more than one witnessed an event, or maybe the same sort |
| 16 |
of event happened multiple times). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity can |
| 19 |
> be exposed. And in this case, deservedly so. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is still very problematically legally, because this amounts to |
| 22 |
potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that |
| 23 |
you've gotten it right to the standards of a court. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> 4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses to justice, and |
| 26 |
> if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's part and they |
| 27 |
> should take the heat for it. If they're doing their jobs properly though, |
| 28 |
> passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I do agree that people who falsely accuse others should be sanctioned, |
| 31 |
but this is probably best handled in private through the same Comrel |
| 32 |
processes. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
And if after scrutiny all you have is he-says-she-says then we should |
| 35 |
probably just tell everybody what they should be doing, get them to |
| 36 |
acknowledge that they intend to do so going forward (regardless of |
| 37 |
whether it did or didn't happen in the past), and move on unless new |
| 38 |
evidence surfaces. Sometimes you can't always tell what happened. |
| 39 |
I'm certainly not suggesting that a mere accusation should lead to |
| 40 |
harsh action. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Rich |
Archives