And regarding compensation for the damage to my car, I think there will be courts where I can force them to reimburse the damages.
But of the three examples, the one about Dreamcatcher is the closest in meaning to the incident that occurred. So, I won't put Alessandro on ignore if someone says nasty things to me through his ICQ ;)
Added 3 minutes ago
Now a simple and specific question: who is to blame, and what will happen to the Mayor after this? :confused: Please answer without hesitation!
I am sure that V.V. Putin is a very reasonable person, and he will immediately understand that the Mayor will not send him such letters. He (the Mayor) will be reprimanded for negligence, but no one will send him to Kolyma, and he will not be removed from his position if he had no previous offenses.
In fact, the example with the nasty things from someone else's ICQ is practically identical to this.
Added 13 minutes ago
However, equating the concept of "there is some explanation" = "not guilty" is permissible only for ordinary people who are far from jurisprudence.
I gave an example above of how, two years ago, in a similar situation, but in an offline tournament, it was documented with a video recording that a player violated the rules by changing the game mechanics. Then everyone believed him when he said that he did not do it intentionally. They simply annulled his save, but they did not ban him as a cheater. Now, the same person, in a similar situation (in my opinion, the depth of the act and the consequences are clearly less than the previous one), does not believe another person and votes for awarding him the "Champion of Cheating" title. Neo, agree that some consistency in decisions should be observed. Even if there is no precedent here. Otherwise, we believe one person on his word, but not the other. Or is it all because one is a representative of the administration, and the other is a visiting guest from another resource?
