Nothing screams a fair trial like changing the rules of engagement halfway through, ain't I right IncognitoGuy?

Seriously I went from siding with ig to siding with Andrew bc of this

The constitution thing?

Yeah

Yeah it's uh.....not a great look

I don’t know the full details but apparently ig broke the constitution or something?

More or less, nobody pushing for the trial took the time to read in the constitution for what actually needed to be done, then they changed it because I pointed out some of the issues, but they changed more than just the issues so that it'd be easier for them to push the trial through
Namely that 3-7 judges are required, they ignored that at first, then changed it to 1 judge

1 judge never works. We need a jury of at least 5 people to come to an unbiased decision.
Yeah, it’s stupid. Besides, Andrew might be a jerk sometimes, but then again, so is ig.

How could anybody have predicted this?

1) I'm not pepe party lol
2) Not all of them were flaws exactly, you guys just didn't seem to want to have to get the 3 to 7 judges and such
3) Those that were flaws should've been kinda obvious, but y'all just decided to gloss over them. You're so desperate to try and get to Andrew that you can't even think through how to run the trial properly.

In fairness, I haven’t read the new Constitution, as I don’t really have a dog in this fight other than the fact Andrew threatened to ban me from Imgflip completely.

But from the wall of text that I saw in the comments of that Congress vote, it does seem like some thought is being given to this!

Hold on. This whole operation was your idea.

1) You changed more than the issues I pointed out. Previously, there was a supreme court of multiple judges, and now, there's only one judge.
2) I was also pointing out how bad it is that you were so eager to start the trial before you even knew how to start it properly. Desperate.

1) The Supreme Court never got started so it was only right to remove it since it doesn't exist and was only causing confusion.

2) I started it fine, but it needed a redraft so you and Envoy (who have a clear pro-Andrew bias) wouldn't have an excuse to block the trial.

1) You mean you were trying to start the trial without even having the necessary court ready? Wowwww, wonder why I called you out on that

2) yeah, before you even had the necessary judges ready. "I started it fine" XD

1) the Supreme Court has never been needed for past trials because it’s never even existed. This is the first time someone’s had an issue with this and we’ve had loads of trials in the past.

2) we did and still do have the necessary judges. Stop complaining about us not using a Supreme Court that’s never even existed.

1) Ok? You guys made it in the constitution, you should've had one

2) You were putting the cart before the horse because you were so eager to start the trial

1) and now you’re mad we’ve improved the Constitution so that isn’t an issue anymore? Make your mind up.

2) no u

Come on, IG. No u on IP, really?

I was fed up with how he kept going on about a Supreme Court that never even existed.

It was a joke.

uhh, got me? I've said my piece, most people can see through you on that one