|
Judges and juries are encouraged to put aside their personal biases, not personal opinions. They are encouraged, in fact, to develop an opinion based on the evidence at hand. That is probably why a judges' ruling on a matter is called a "judicial opinion" in the US.
Indeed, they are not capable of giving other than their personal opinions on the matter. They are asked to give their opinions on whether enough evidence exists to declare someone guilty. They are not asked to base their decisions on known facts (of which there are precious few in the world in a formal logical sense), but on the evidence generally, which often includes much circumstantial evidence. For instance, Scott Peterson was convicted almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.
You seem to be confusing having an opinion, which is the only thing any rules trial is ever decided on (someone(s)' opinion), with having a pre-existing bias. If you believe Synozeer has a pre-existing bias against MM, complain to him, not the rest of us.
The administration was informed via a personal email. It's also of interest to everyone else who competes in voting, however, as we should all know how to watch for cheating. MM's cheating was an attack on every other MUD on the list that was below them, let's not forget.
Why exactly would anyone need an "I told you so" regarding MM? The near universal consensus is that MM was cheating. MM was kicked off for cheating. No credible source has come forward to present any argument to the contrary. *shrug*
--matt
|