Дубровин Павел
Auto-translated
Here, Vic is talking about the method of analysis. He says that facts (which are the evidence base) should be analyzed not based on emotions (using an ethical method), which is what Oelm accused him of lacking, but using a logical method.
And as someone directly involved in practical jurisprudence, I can confidently state that a professional court will side with the one who presents the case clearly and concisely, like a mathematical theorem, rather than with emotional "water carriers," whom we often see in foreign films, typically with the aim of influencing the audience and a jury.
Everyone has their own style, and that's why we have a forum where everyone's opinion is needed and valued. :)
It's just a shame that the discussion has turned into an off-topic conversation. :(
In my opinion, the court (in real life) will side with the truth (the law), as it understands it, and not with the one who, unlike the other, logically presents something.
That is, the fact that something is presented logically (or ethically, emotionally) does not, in itself, mean that the actions of the party are legal (or illegal).
For Judges (in the game), the theory of probability (the permissibility of certain player moves without maphacks) becomes of primary importance.
С истиной где-то рядом...
Лето 2010.
Лето 2010.