anonymous text, un: ANON

[doreimi]

i have a question. there's no right or wrong answer, i'm just wondering what people think.

suppose somebody came here, and outwardly they seemed like an average person. kept to themselves, didn't make trouble, maybe were a little bit weird but not, like, offensively so. you've never seen them do anything wrong. they seem pretty harmless. they're just a normal, fine, generally boring person.

then imagine somebody else said that they knew that person, and that all the niceness was just an act, and really that person was dangerous. really dangerous. and that the person hurt people in really bad ways. but imagine there was no proof of it, really, just that upset person's word against the boring person's.

how would you decide who to believe? would you only go by what you saw yourself, or only by what happened here and not where they came from, or what? would you believe anyone at all?

like i said, there's no right or wrong answer, i guess. i just wonder how you would make a decision either way, in a situation like that.

Comments

[tigerpoet]

Do I know both the accused and the accuser equally well? If the accuser is my friend, I'm going to believe them, even if there isn't proof.

permanon

[doreimi]

so it's sort of a question of who got there first? what if it turned out it was the other way around, and the supposedly dangerous person was your friend? would that change anything?

[tigerpoet]

If the accused was my friend, I would want to talk to them about it. I wouldn't say any names, because I don't want the other person to get in trouble, but I would ask them about the things that were said and if they have any basis.

text | un: fantasma

[teaserving]

trust the potential victim
keep an eye on the guy in question

better safe than sorry

permanon

[doreimi]

[Oh, Abbacchio. ]

what would it take for the guy in question to convince you he was fine? or would you trust the potential victim no matter what, no questions asked?

[trenchdoting]

There's an easy answer to that, pal! See, ya gotta settle it in a court of law! Put their testimonies together, and evidence, and ask Mr. Edgeworth to prosecute, and bam! Just like that, the truth'll come out!

permanon

[doreimi]

what if there wasn't any evidence? suppose the supposedly dangerous person was really good at getting rid of it. so it was just the dangerous person's testimony against the accusing person's.

is mr. edgeworth good enough to get to the truth even in a situation like that?

text | un: kishibe

[penpoint]

I can easily find out who's lying. Regardless, though, there's no harm in practicing caution around someone who's been identified as dangerous.

permanon

[doreimi]

you could be absolutely certain who was telling the truth and who wasn't?

[She knows full well he could, but. Anonymous.]

Anon

[foolishjustice]

The Ware Wolf Shop sells pills that can show whether or not someone is telling the truth. If one of the involved parties isn't willing to take one, then I would suspect their testimony.

But that raises another question: what if neither side was lying? What if the accused really had done terrible things in the past, but was trying to start over and be a better person?

Would you give them a second chance, or do they deserve to be condemned forever for the sort of person they were in the past?

permanon

[doreimi]

hey, now, who's the one asking the questions here?

i'm just kidding. i don't think a victim should be expected to forgive a person who hurt them, regardless of whether the person who hurt them is trying to be better or not. they can choose to if they want to, but they shouldn't be expected to.

if i wasn't the victim, though...then i think i would depend on what they were doing to be better. how genuine i thought they were about it.

[i_will_live]

I'd be careful but I wouldn't avoid the accused person entirely.

Even if they did something horrible it might be the case they want to change. If nothing else this place could be a second chance for some people

Maybe if you're somewhat close ask them point-blank about it. It might help them own what they did if it's true.

permanon

[doreimi]

what if you found out, after interacting with them, that they didn't want to change? would that make a difference?

text;

[swungdown]

i'd go with whatever my gut says about it, really.

permanon

[doreimi]

so you'd listen to both people and then let your gut decide?

[text]

[spah]

Going by personal experience... it's usually the boring, unassuming folks you got to watch out for.

permanon

[doreimi]

you had an experience like that with someone?

[justsomeshrimp]

It's very hard to say.
Either way there is a potential for causing an innocent person harm.
In truth, however, I would be inclined to believe the person speaking up.
I of course would keep an open mind but depending on the exact nature of the accusations I might be more or less compelled.
I'd want to be believed, so I in turn will try to believe others.

[This is. Really hitting close to home.]

permanon

[doreimi]

so you'd believe the person speaking up because you've also been that person before? the person who knew something about someone else, i mean.

text; un: orpheus

[foolaround]

thats sort of a big question anon!
i usually want to see the best in everyone, but ive had experience with people like that and it didnt go well...

id trust the person speaking up. try to find out more.

permanon

[doreimi]

when you say people like that, you mean people who are dangerous who don't seem dangerous on the outside?

it seems like most people wouldn't make any snap judgments but would try to find out both sides of things. pretty few have said "it's enough just that someone spoke up".

text; un: sizhui

[sizhui]

I think a lot of the people who have done bad things have had reasons for those bad things. Sometimes they may not be good reasons, but they usually exist. And, in this world, the reasons why the boring person may have done what he did are no longer there.

That boring person might want to not do such things anymore. But if they are pushed and pushed, they probably will be given a reason again.

In this situation, I'd ask the upset person about details, to keep on a lookout for that kind of things happening again. Because people's safety is important. Maybe take precautions, but not ones that would personally attack or corner the boring person.

And then give the boring person a chance to not do the bad things again, by not assuming that he will do them again.

permanon

[doreimi]

hmmm. in that example, you make it sound like the boring person would almost start doing bad things again out of spite. like saying "well, if everyone believes i'm this bad, then i might as well be".

what kind of reasons are you thinking of, why the boring person would've done a bad thing? you sound like you've thought about this a lot.

[text, anonymous generic username!]

[bloodisthicker]

I'd say it'd definitely be worth looking into what the accuser has to say, if nothing else. You can never really be too careful if someone's that dangerous... but at the same time, I wouldn't really advocate vigilante justice, either.

permanon

[doreimi]

hmm. what if vigilante justice turned out to be the only chance of bringing the boring person to justice at all?