Disclaimer: The following is a hopeful opinion which is not proven. This disclaimer takes the place of all references to the fact that this is only one potential version of the situation, but deserves consideration nonetheless.
I can't really get mad about the "discrepancies" because I don't think the team statement is intended to be that deceitful. The series of events before the purposeful interference as we know them sound very emotionally stressful to the individual. High emotional stress inherently leads to poor judgement, and, in the long term, poor memory and recall. Even before he/she got busted, I'm willing to bet it would have been hard for him/her to recall the whole story. After the release of the Einstein Report, and the individual's subsequent ban for life, his/her story becomes shoddy at best. This is compounded by the possibility that the individual tried to convince him/herself that he/she isn't as guilty as he/she really is, leading to a
real belief that is different from reality. By the time Steering Committee was told the story, it was probably far diverged from the truth.
On the other hand, the well-documented unreliability of witnesses probably means the Einstein Report's version isn't all true, either. Like so many things, two sides of the same story are neither the truth nor lies, and the reality lies somewhere in between them.
A couple other things:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
From what I'm reading, this individual's best interest was to show the problem to the FTA before it became a larger issue (based on the claim the individual saw some other interference).
...
Life banishment from the place where he can help and inspire students is probably one of the worst ideas ever. Maybe a temporary banishment (a few years or so) to let them think about what they've done. And then if Team 548 wants this mentor back, I think he/she should be allowed back, to continue inspiring and teaching students.
What the individual did is completely terrible, but is it something forgivable?
|
1. There are plenty of ways to make a statement. The decision the individual made was
THE WRONG WAY to do so. I'm not directing anything at you or disparaging your opinion, because you're largely correct. My comment is that
voluntary manslaughter (provocation) isn't
murder, but it's still not permissible. Being mad doesn't give you any and all rights you want, especially when you don't know the full story (and actually have it wrong).
I'm not comparing the magnitudes of each situation, just the framework. I'm also not calling the individual a murderer at all, I truly believe this was a good individual who made a bad choice.
2. Is it really one of the "worst ideas ever"? It's harsh, but you have to set a precedent and say "This is not acceptable in
FIRST."
3. Not yet, it seems. But that doesn't mean it will never will be. After a while, everyone can look back differently.