I would be interested to see a legal basis for the court's ability to issue this kind of injunction - and whether there is precedent in this area.The Court therefore orders that the Prospective Defendant, Pigeonstan, must not delete, edit, or otherwise alter any Discord post which are relevant to this request for indictment and, in particular, must not delete, edit, or otherwise alter any Discord post which is contained in the evidence submitted with the request; and any other person who may be able to edit, suppress, or delete and who is aware of the terms of this order must not delete, edit, or otherwise alter any post which the Prospective Defendant is restrained from deleting, editing, or otherwise altering.
I recall an instance when the Attorney General refused to drop charges, despite the original complaint indicating that it is their preference to do so. If anything, the previous system gives the original complainant less say in the process and outcome of the trial.I told you so.
Touché!I recall an instance when the Attorney General refused to drop charges, despite the original complaint indicating that it is their preference to do so. If anything, the previous system gives the original complainant less say in the process and outcome of the trial.
Pigeonstan reminds me of myself when I was younger. I had serious anger issues and consistently failed to get them under control, which often caused me to act brashly and to say things that I didn't mean when I believed others to be attacking me. He also reminds me of a younger player I knew in another game, who consistently fabricated scandals and such because he was bored. Being the leader of the clan he was in, I had to keep an eye on him to identify these fabrications quickly before they got out of hand. I Pigeonstan he should be told not to do that or similar things again, and someone who is not otherwise engaged should be assigned to keep an eye on him to make sure that this does not happen again. Not being a long-term member of the government, I do not know whether the second suggestion is possible or plausible, but I think it should be tried.This post is not a legal argument or critique on the law, but a critique on collective behavior.
1. Pigeonstan may be quite young. I do not know. Do you?
2. They took matters into their own hands inappropriately and misled others.
3. They may have been specifically told, or read elsewhere (possibly in Discord), to be proactive with little or no other advice or knowledge.
4. I do not believe that this warrants a trial, regardless of how bored the citizenry may be. It does warrant chastisement by other means. A "Don't do that again" would suffice, preferably with a responsible individual explaining the potential consequences of their actions and precisely what they did wrong, as what needs to be understood by Pigeonstan, and those like them, is that this is a different game than those they may be familiar with.
5. This may be a scapegoat, or worse, maneuver.