| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2015 01:49:12 PM · #51 |
In my opinion SC do a great job and just because I totally disagree with their view on this matter doesn't mean that I'm delibertly trying to stir the pot, please SC know that I have nothing against you and me thinks you do a fine job most of the time, it must be hard wearing those shoes.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:54:14 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by jagar:
Let it be known that whoever cheated here would immediately get a total and unequivocal pardon from me and I'm sure that DPC as a whole would do the same, everybody screws up from time to time, the fact that SC doesn't think we could forgive and forget is actually quite sad, talk about pedestals. |
I would like to think you're correct and that everyone here is grown up enough to forgive and forget, but I've been reading DPC forums for quite some time and have reason to suspect that there could be harm in opening up this can of worms. Not everyone here is as accepting as you are. |
I actually think that hiding truths, not being open about what happened to the paying members is more detrimental than simply stating the facts, this is a community and this kind of totalitarian decision may seem the smoothest way to go but in the long wrong it won't pay.
Openness has to be the way forth. |
I believe that open communication is the only healthy way to go. But the community has to want it or it won't work. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 02:00:55 PM · #53 |
The inevitable tension between openness and authority can only be creative in a community.
SC acting like the altruistic and all knowing authority in this case makes us uninformed non altruistic members feel pretty dirty, how can they possibly say that we would treat the truths any differently to them.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 14:02:52. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 02:07:26 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Sigh. I think you should take away the demonstrable fact that one low vote makes almost no difference, especially when it was done equally to everyone. I think that you should also be wise enough to see that the other case involved two people who are not you, and therefore it shouldn't matter to you directly, outside of a general desire to know every detail. |
you know the identities, or so you say. I wonder if you'd be taking a different stand if you didn't. |
Be very clear, I know ONE identity. And have been told by someone via PM that they think they know the other. Frankly, I'd rather not know, but more than that I'd like the wild speculation to stop - this really has been blown massively out of proportion. I mean, seriously, you've gone so far as to compare this to first degree murder..
So, basically, my knowledge of a part of this doesn't really change my perspective - it'd be damned stupid to out these people for vigilante justice. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 02:09:42 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me. |
Doesn't at all to me. The state of mind behind those is radically different: a strong but punctual reaction, VS a cold and calculated action maintained over time. |
I agree with Gyaban here one is premeditated the other is impulsive.
Huge difference. |
Yet, when we compare the sentence lengths to HOMICIDE, we see that SC was proportionally correct in their sentence assessments.
And if you think you can call a set of votes that were cast and then allowed to stand for an entire week without remorse or change an "impulsive" decision, then you're being way more generous than I would be.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 14:10:48. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 02:43:52 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Sigh. I think you should take away the demonstrable fact that one low vote makes almost no difference, especially when it was done equally to everyone. I think that you should also be wise enough to see that the other case involved two people who are not you, and therefore it shouldn't matter to you directly, outside of a general desire to know every detail. |
you know the identities, or so you say. I wonder if you'd be taking a different stand if you didn't. |
Be very clear, I know ONE identity. And have been told by someone via PM that they think they know the other. Frankly, I'd rather not know, but more than that I'd like the wild speculation to stop - this really has been blown massively out of proportion. I mean, seriously, you've gone so far as to compare this to first degree murder..
So, basically, my knowledge of a part of this doesn't really change my perspective - it'd be damned stupid to out these people for vigilante justice. |
Cracks me up when people say "i don't want to know" cuz that just goes against human nature and I don't buy it. Secondly, I don't think anyone was ever saying it was comparable to murder but just using another example to make a point. What would have been acceptable? Shoplifting? Would anything relating to virtual cheating NOT have been hyperbole? |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 02:56:43 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Sigh. I think you should take away the demonstrable fact that one low vote makes almost no difference, especially when it was done equally to everyone. I think that you should also be wise enough to see that the other case involved two people who are not you, and therefore it shouldn't matter to you directly, outside of a general desire to know every detail. |
you know the identities, or so you say. I wonder if you'd be taking a different stand if you didn't. |
Be very clear, I know ONE identity. And have been told by someone via PM that they think they know the other. Frankly, I'd rather not know, but more than that I'd like the wild speculation to stop - this really has been blown massively out of proportion. I mean, seriously, you've gone so far as to compare this to first degree murder..
So, basically, my knowledge of a part of this doesn't really change my perspective - it'd be damned stupid to out these people for vigilante justice. |
Cracks me up when people say "i don't want to know" cuz that just goes against human nature and I don't buy it. Secondly, I don't think anyone was ever saying it was comparable to murder but just using another example to make a point. What would have been acceptable? Shoplifting? Would anything relating to virtual cheating NOT have been hyperbole? |
Cory knows this it's just a matter of can he get his nose out of the SC's butt long enough to see it?
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 14:57:23. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 03:25:57 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I mean, seriously, you've gone so far as to compare this to first degree murder..
|
you made that stretch, not me. no one is comparing this to murder, i was merely saying that when an deliberate attempt was made to break the rules the punishment is stiffer than when its done without conspiracy, you seemed to suggest it shouldn't be.
i've gone on record to say that i don't care if they announce, (its been obvious who one of the culprits is anyway...) i think the whole thing is overblown too, hence my facetious responses in the last thread, however it just seems weird that some on the SC asks for opinion, ignore it and then gets pissed off that it was given. the thing would have died out but Bear left us with that last post in the old thread before he locked it and that stirred everyone up even more.
fwiw, this train wreck we have going is fascinating. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 03:27:15 PM · #59 |
The rant forums are still subject to the Forum Rules ΓΆ€“ I call your attention specifically to #s 9,11-14.
This is your (everyone posting subsequent to this) "warning" ...
If you can't make your point without vulgar insults of each other, please take your conversation to an unmonitored forum outside of DPC.
I assume that, in the interest of "transparency," you'll want us to post your names prominently should it be necessary to suspend you for persistent rules/TOS violations. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 03:45:23 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
I mean, seriously, you've gone so far as to compare this to first degree murder..
|
you made that stretch, not me. no one is comparing this to murder, i was merely saying that when an deliberate attempt was made to break the rules the punishment is stiffer than when its done without conspiracy, you seemed to suggest it shouldn't be.
i've gone on record to say that i don't care if they announce, (its been obvious who one of the culprits is anyway...) i think the whole thing is overblown too, hence my facetious responses in the last thread, however it just seems weird that some on the SC asks for opinion, ignore it and then gets pissed off that it was given. the thing would have died out but Bear left us with that last post in the old thread before he locked it and that stirred everyone up even more.
fwiw, this train wreck we have going is fascinating. |
Ok, perhaps I should have said drawn a parallel. Fascinatingly, even at that level, again, the SC seems to have handed down proportionately fair sentences. Or was that not your original point?
And not to get too much shit-covered-corn on my nose here, but I think the SC asked for input, without any promise in return. Paul was kind enough to actually throw out all the relevant details, sans identities. I can't see how that could be bemoaned as somehow unfair or insufficient.
And, gawd I do love trainwrecks, the glorious smell of heavy diesel running into a marsh in the morning is delightful isn't it?
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 15:47:11. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 04:15:47 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The rant forums are still subject to the Forum Rules ΓΆ€“ I call your attention specifically to #s 9,11-14.
This is your (everyone posting subsequent to this) "warning" ...
If you can't make your point without vulgar insults of each other, please take your conversation to an unmonitored forum outside of DPC.
I assume that, in the interest of "transparency," you'll want us to post your names prominently should it be necessary to suspend you for persistent rules/TOS violations. |
Hopefully you are not referring to me, I'm simply stating my views in an open and friendly manner, the aggressive tone is surely coming from your side of the fence here General, let not this totalitarian power go to your head.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 04:19:46 PM · #62 |
| It would be ironic and fantastically ridiculous if somone got suspended for expressing thier views in this thread. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 04:26:33 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Hopefully you are not referring to me, I'm simply stating my views in an open and friendly manner, the aggressive tone is surely coming from your side of the fence here General, let not this totalitarian power go to your head. |
I explicitly stated who I was referring to ... |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 04:30:25 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by jagar:
What overblown hysterics, this is a discussion and one that SC asked to have, the arguments are there, by using the word hysterical, by locking a thread, who is being hysterical? |
vs.
Originally posted by jagar:
This thread will probably get locked down because it could harm the popular person, if it does I'll copy it and post it again until they kick me out, without anonymity of course. |
A threat to infinitely repeat a behavior despite clear indications it is unwelcome? Seems a bit hysterical to me.
So does going "Hysterical??? Who's hysterical??? You're the ones who are hysterical!!!"
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 04:36:59 PM · #65 |
I, too, got the impression the guilty parties were popular members and so were being protected. SC has said that is not true, and there is no way to prove this either way.
When these issues become pubic knowledge, there is always the game of members who know the identity and those who don't. There are usually posts of "I know who it is, but I won't tell." And the "You don't need to know" posts. Maybe, a simple explanation of what happened, who it was, and the punishment received would make these threads a lot shorter. Now, it becomes gossip, leads to feelings of in-groups vs out-groups, and lots of speculation. Members could decide for themselves if the offense is something easily forgiven, worthy of disrespect, or something in between. I prefer truth and openness over these little hints that something is going on. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 04:47:13 PM · #66 |
"Don't you people GET it? Real, tangible damage would be done, out there in the Real World, if we "exposed" one of these people here. It would be utterly irresponsible of us to do that."
This sounds serious. Are we talking murder, stalking, some other Real World crime? Is the victim in actual danger? If so, have authorities been contacted? Not saying I need to know specifics, but in my profession I am a mandated reporter with duty to warn and maybe this warrants more involvement than just a suspension. Or, maybe there was just too much drama going on in the other thread. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 05:08:21 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Maybe, a simple explanation of what happened, who it was, and the punishment received would make these threads a lot shorter. Now, it becomes gossip, leads to feelings of in-groups vs out-groups, and lots of speculation. Members could decide for themselves if the offense is something easily forgiven, worthy of disrespect, or something in between. |
It's gossip and speculation either way. If, instead of saying "two people were suspended for voting irregularities," we said "Mike and Jagar were suspended for voting irregularities," the only change would be who the baseless assumptions and wild conjecture were directed at. Do we then release their voting history for public inspection? That would be a violation of site privacy guidelines just so a few people can be satisfied that justice was done when that isn't their call to make. The only thing accomplished by releasing a name is to paint a target on that person's back and fire a starter pistol for the speculation to commence. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 05:20:28 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
This sounds serious. Are we talking murder, stalking, some other Real World crime? Is the victim in actual danger? If so, have authorities been contacted? |
Bear was referring to the people exposed to public lynching at the hands of members with a demonstrated willingness to assume favoritism, conspiracy, outright cheating, and other offenses without even knowing the relevant facts.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 17:27:42. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 05:32:32 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Maybe, a simple explanation of what happened, who it was, and the punishment received would make these threads a lot shorter. Now, it becomes gossip, leads to feelings of in-groups vs out-groups, and lots of speculation. Members could decide for themselves if the offense is something easily forgiven, worthy of disrespect, or something in between. |
It's gossip and speculation either way. If, instead of saying "two people were suspended for voting irregularities," we said "Mike and Jagar were suspended for voting irregularities," the only change would be who the baseless assumptions and wild conjecture were directed at. Do we then release their voting history for public inspection? That would be a violation of site privacy guidelines just so a few people can be satisfied that justice was done when that isn't their call to make. The only thing accomplished by releasing a name is to paint a target on that person's back and fire a starter pistol for the speculation to commence. |
Just to be double clear here, there is no in-group or out-group. Outside of the SC and perhaps some clever sleuths, I am the only person who knows the identity - and I only know what I know because one of the guilty parties directly involved me via means outside of DPC. I certainly had no intention of appearing as though I'm the singular member of the 'in-group', and think it's silly to even think there is such an in-group. It's been said many times around here, and plenty of the time I would seem to be in that supposed group - but the fact of the matter is that I've made myself available to help with DPC issues for those who don't want to reach out to SC, and for those who have a technical issue with DPC (I am, in fact, rather good at debugging DPC crap as it turns out).. Because of that, and the fact that I take a general interest in DPC matters, I would often appear to have 'inside' knowledge, but the fact is that I'm rarely privy to anything more than everyone else is. (the exceptions almost always being a PM from a DPC member, or the previous involvement I had with the TPL/DPL stuff)
In any case, I wish you could re-read what I said - (you can't because SC deleted the post, thinking it would cause EXACTLY this sort of stupidity) - essentially I made it clear that the party was apologetic, and that from what I knew, the issue was essentially going to have zero effect on anyone but a singular harmed party. I had hoped to end rampant speculation on the "Oh my gawd, you're protecting the popular' crap, but clearly it had no such effect, perhaps only reinforcing such a silly idea. As a further 'service' on this issue, I did make it clear, a few times I think, that the person who I do know about is apologetic, feeling that DPC would probably appreciate knowing for a fact that this person feels pretty darn bad about it. If that's not good enough for you, then that's really more a you problem. No offense intended.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 17:37:11. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 05:46:26 PM · #70 |
When we are only given some of the information the only thing left is speculation.
Oh and don't sell the other members short they know more than you think.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 05:47:39 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Oh and don't sell the other members short they know more than you think. |
Reading comprehension sucks around here sometimes.
Originally posted by Cory:
Outside of the SC and perhaps some clever sleuths |
Or, are we back on religion again now that this has made it's way to /rant?
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 17:48:54. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 06:24:22 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Essentially I made it clear that the party was apologetic, and that from what I knew, the issue was essentially going to have zero effect on anyone but a singular harmed party. |
How about an apology to the person that received the low votes? |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 07:47:01 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm not sure how things work in Canada Ray but over here if someone's guilt is hidden because of that persons popularity or importance it would be called a scandal. You say in the great scheme of things, we pay our dues here Ray we contribute and we share, it is a community and as such certain basic principles should be respected, they haven't been.
I have been here long enough to know that SC nearly always do a good job, I've also been here long enough to know that the majority wouldn't go against their opinion. I am just emphasizing the unfairness of this particular case and unless SC want to go against the basic principles of freedom of speech, I have the right to do so. |
Again you are working on mere speculation, and a scandal this most definitely is NOT.
I pay dues... so what? I spend more on coffee every single week than I do for my yearly dues in this place.
Principles and freedom of speech you say, good grief man no one is stopping you from expressing yourself. Here's one for you, I belong to a union and pay through the nose for union dues and low and behold the union does not make me privy to every single decision they make. Unbelievable as it may seem, I have a grievance being adjudicated at this very moment and neither the union representatives, the lawyers involved or the management personnel have opted to share every single tidbit of information with me regarding the process involved.
Am I upset over this... NOT ONE IOTA... all I really care about is the final outcome and if I have the good fortune of winning, I will have several months of holiday coming to me.
What possible advantage would you gain by knowing who did it.
Personally, I am so tired of this constant bantering that I would readily accept blame for this transgression and the suspension that goes with it.
ENOUGH ALREADY |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 07:58:02 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Cory:
Essentially I made it clear that the party was apologetic, and that from what I knew, the issue was essentially going to have zero effect on anyone but a singular harmed party. |
How about an apology to the person that received the low votes? |
I'm sure that there is some of that there too, but to say that the grudge remains is probably fair (although I don't know for sure either way, this is speculation)
People don't give up grudges easy, especially when they feel they're justified. *shrug* It's all silliness IMO.
ETA: I have been informed that apparently there is a club, I'm not in fact the only one who was told. Whatever, I'm sure one of them can be bribed easier than me - start making offers folks. ;-)
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 22:11:11. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 10:24:16 PM · #75 |
| Its amazing how the smell of diesel fuel overwhelmes delicious buttery popcorn. |
|
