User blog comment:EmpyreanSmoke/Bureaucrat/@comment-166.137.139.32-20141202035845

There is no evidence proving EmpyreanSmoke's explanation, yet there is no evidence disproving his explanation either. What is the more fair way of judging things, "guilty until proven innocent", or "innocent until proven guilty"? I would argue the latter, and am sure you would too. If all of you agree that this is the most fair way to judge things (which I'm sure you do), then we must apply this to EmpyreanSmoke's case. He has not been proven guilty, so that means he remains innocent. Please leave your opinion on which method (innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent) is more fair.