Empyrean has requested me to put up a blog post on his behalf as he is currently unable to make his own blogs. He has his own words ready and is asking me to post them here.

Disclaimer: Anything that is posted here will have its source specified. Anything Empyrean asks me to post is his own, and not from me, unless otherwise mentioned.


"When I (EmpyreanSmoke) requested to become a bureaucrat, my cousins (LittleOl'Me and SuperBossNatural7) were some of the various people who voted in my favor. When Calebchiam saw that they shared the same IP address as me (because we made all accounts in the same place), he assumed that they were sockpuppet accounts created by me. I have given the explanation to all of this in full detail, but users are ignoring it because I haven't proved it. The thing is, it is impossible to prove that they are my cousins. Because of this, I have no evidence to back up my story. But also, there is no evidence disproving my story either. Please tell me, which is the more fair judging system? "Guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty"? I would argue the ladder, and so would most other human beings. I am almost certain you would too. Since I am sure we can all agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is the most fair judging system, we have to apply that in this situation. There is no evidence I can provide that my story is true, yet there is no evidence that my story is false either. Since there is no evidence my story is false, and no evidence that I am guilty, I remain innocent. Please comment what you think is more fair; "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent"?"

Please post your responses to his explanation accordingly. Thank you.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.