On 15/11/2007, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh Lordy, Durova-- that's true, there are cases
like that but it's an
incredibly dangerous direction. Secret claims the accused person
can't rebut. Secret claims that can't be discussed in public. And as
you imply, "doube secret" evidence-- where not only is the specific
content of the evidence secret, but even the existence of such
evidence might be secret (or at least unknown).
It's usually problematic in the case of checkuser evidence. "Supply
your evidence!" "Er, no, I'm not allowed to." "Then unblock!"
"Er,
no." "FACIST ROUGE ADNIM!" The way around this is to get other
checkusers for their opinion. But even two or three doesn't stop the
querulous and their supporters from writing megabytes of ANI. Because
people seem to think checkuser is magic pixie dust from Heck. When
actually it's only something that serves to corroborate (or not)
existing suspicion.
- d.