Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9674236" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Have I, even once, said "beyond all doubt innocent", or even anything which could be spindled, folded, or mutilated into that?I have repeatedly spoken of a presumption of innocence unless (or until) evidence suggests otherwise. I've used either that exact phrase--"until evidence suggests otherwise"--or some close variation over and over again.Er...actually they are? Like legitimately. Within the context of a currently-active trial, they're motions. After, they're appeals. Like that's literally the same actions you take to address whether the court has correctly determined the guilt of a defendant.I don't see how that doesn't get exactly the same standard. We arrange courts to protect against biased judges too! As in, there's literally a body of law and practice about that specific thing.Even if not, that is literally actually what Lanefan said, so no, I don't accept this substitution. It literally was that we have to assume players are cheaters who will immediately jump on an opportunity to cheat as soon as the referee isn't looking, and will only be held back by the fact that if they do cheat, they'll get caught.Then why should we not arrange things so that, even if the GM isn't entirely above board, the result is still fun? You still haven't actually defended the idea that GMs need to be above suspicion, while the game needs to be structured around resilience against player misbehavior.It seems just as "very tempting" to remove a singular massive point of failure. More, really, since that's only needing to care about the behavior of one single person. Much easier to control that than to control the whole group! Surely, if we can "achieve this with minimal disruption", we should, right?I don't see that. I genuinely do not see that point in what you argued. Instead, all you've said is that protection against misbehavior, so long as it doesn't disrupt things, is desirable. That I agree with. Just vaguely waving a hand at "the GM's role is different" doesn't somehow justify the GM being above suspicion.It's not a matter of statements about someone's moral character. While I find such things tedious and unhelpful, I don't consider that worth planting a flag over. "I deserve to be trusted because I'm GM, you don't deserve any trust because you're a player" is a standard I simply do not and cannot accept. Either everyone deserves trust unless and until evidence suggests otherwise, or no one deserves it.</blockquote>

Verification