"The modlogs for the modlogs"

Let's say you make an association, and it aims to address errors in records that are supposed to detail wrongdoing. Naturally the same scrutiny extends to reports, right?

Let's say you have two sides that are at odds. However, they both recount things differently or interpret the same events differently. You would ask for proof, right?

My question for a certain @frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world is, do you have any smoking guns? All I see are arguments over pedantic details and claims where the so-called evidence is no more conclusive than the verdict at the beginning of 12 Angry Men (or My Cousin Vinny if you want to use a more fun example).

Some people have complained of others going around reporting everything they say in certain communities as a way to get them banned everywhere, often depending on the mods' carelessness over relevance or investigation.