- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,690
- Age
- 44
- Location
- Vermont, US
- Main Job

- Secondary Job

- Third Job

- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- OwMyFace
- FFXI
- Vilurum
Acting without prior knowledge or opinion to a matter is the best way to go about it. However that obviously only applies to real life, obviously the internet operates in a seperate manner which I have not come to terms yet.
Actually you're mixing two very different beasts there.
Acting without prior opinion: very approvable. You're unbiased, and can look at all the facts and arguments objectively.
Acting without prior knowledge: sheer idiocy. You have no idea what's happened, what is happening, and the only facts you have access to are the ones that are presented in the arguments. Which may not even be true, and are very likely not going to paint a complete picture. *PARTICULARLY* if, as in this case, only one side's arguments are actually taken into account.
If you're gonna make the analogy to the RL jury that I think you're going for, then the situation here is basically having the defense speak to the jury directly. No prosecution whatsoever, no cross-examination of arguments, and all in all generally only seeing one side of the story.
If you *did* have prior knowledge yourself (but you just took misplaced pride in stating that you didn't), then that prior knowledge could allow you to serve those functions, but since you don't, and you didn't get a third party in to do that, then the "jury's" decision - that is, yours - is not remotely meaningful.