| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2015 10:29:14 PM · #76 |
Just out of curiosity is this person apologetic because they got caught exercising a lapse in judgement or because they got caught deliberately attacking someone for a year?
If it was the second would they still be doing it if they hadn't gotten caught?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 11:11:02 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Just out of curiosity is this person apologetic because they got caught exercising a lapse in judgement or because they got caught deliberately attacking someone for a year?
If it was the second would they still be doing it if they hadn't gotten caught? |
Couldn't really say with certainty, as I didn't get full clarification on the matter. My gut feeling from the conversations I've had is that they're more concerned about the lapse in judgement, and the things that were said about them in the other thread (yes, feelings were, in fact hurt, which I'm sure will upset some, and please others...)..
Overall I can't say that I think this magically fixed the grudge, but the person seemed genuine in their remorse about having retaliated, possibly with the recognition that DPC wasn't a good place to bring the grudge. Again, only the feeling I got when talking with them. No matter the rest of the details, I know that this person really does value DPC as a community and are upset at the situation and themselves. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 02:38:08 AM · #78 |
At the very least the main victim of this affair should be notified, it is outrageous that that hasn't already happened, somone was deliberately targeted for over a year and SC knows this but doesn't tell that person, what kind of justice is this, the protectionst kind is what it is.
From what I've gathered from the snippets of info treacle-dripped in these threads and by mails imploring me stop my rampant search for the truth, there is someone important to this site being protected.
To the protected person who apparently regrets thier childish actions: I totally forgive you, SC totaly forgives you, I'm sure the rest of DPC totally forgives you, now please have the dignity to come out in the open and explain yourself, I'm sure the person you victimized would greatly appreciate that and it would calm these stormy waters. If you wanted to SC would let you I'm sure, please have the courage to do this. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 05:34:25 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by jagar:
my rampant search for the truth, there is someone important to this site being protected.
|
Are you familiar with the term: "Tilting at windmills?"
Ray |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 06:02:38 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by jagar:
At the very least the main victim of this affair should be notified, it is outrageous that that hasn't already happened, somone was deliberately targeted for over a year and SC knows this but doesn't tell that person, what kind of justice is this, the protectionst kind is what it is.
From what I've gathered from the snippets of info treacle-dripped in these threads and by mails imploring me stop my rampant search for the truth, there is someone important to this site being protected.
To the protected person who apparently regrets thier childish actions: I totally forgive you, SC totaly forgives you, I'm sure the rest of DPC totally forgives you, now please have the dignity to come out in the open and explain yourself, I'm sure the person you victimized would greatly appreciate that and it would calm these stormy waters. If you wanted to SC would let you I'm sure, please have the courage to do this. |
Other than satisfying Jagars sense of justice, what is the use? What tangible benefit is there?
Also, you're really bad at social behavior prediction if you think a forced public humiliation and apology would do anything but deepen the feud.
Message edited by author 2015-03-05 06:05:42. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 06:35:56 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
At the very least the main victim of this affair should be notified, it is outrageous that that hasn't already happened, somone was deliberately targeted for over a year and SC knows this but doesn't tell that person, what kind of justice is this, the protectionst kind is what it is.
From what I've gathered from the snippets of info treacle-dripped in these threads and by mails imploring me stop my rampant search for the truth, there is someone important to this site being protected.
To the protected person who apparently regrets thier childish actions: I totally forgive you, SC totaly forgives you, I'm sure the rest of DPC totally forgives you, now please have the dignity to come out in the open and explain yourself, I'm sure the person you victimized would greatly appreciate that and it would calm these stormy waters. If you wanted to SC would let you I'm sure, please have the courage to do this. |
Other than satisfying Jagars sense of justice, what is the use? What tangible benefit is there?
Also, you're really bad at social behavior prediction if you think a forced public humiliation and apology would do anything but deepen the feud. |
It's got nothing to do with jagar's sense of justice but it's got everything to do with justice in general.
I think we both know that the victim here probably has a clue who he or she is, maybe he or she would benefit from knowing why they were targeted for so long.
I also think that as a community, trust, honesty, respect, equality, and integrity are key values, these are not being respected at all.
By not coming out and revealing themselves this person is hurting the community twice over.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2015 09:25:00 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by jagar:
It's got nothing to do with jagar's sense of justice but it's got everything to do with justice in general.
I think we both know that the victim here probably has a clue who he or she is, maybe he or she would benefit from knowing why they were targeted for so long.
I also think that as a community, trust, honesty, respect, equality, and integrity are key values, these are not being respected at all.
By not coming out and revealing themselves this person is hurting the community twice over. |
We'll have to see when the time comes if they decide to take this road. I doubt it, but we'll see.
Everyone is assuming that these people will return to DPC I'm not sold.
2 and 3 months is alot of time to find something else and it just might not be worth the chance of embarrassment IF they return. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 10:51:12 AM · #83 |
[quote=jagar] 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. [/quote
I would not eat any of your eggs John but I could always sell them on ;) |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 01:24:27 PM · #84 |
I believe that SC can no longer deny that this thread, one that they open mindedly started has proven that their decision is not unanimously followed and was tainted with favoritism from the very start.
We as a community need to have solid foundations based on respect and equality and until this is dealt with in a proper way either by SC or by those that chose to cheat, we are building on unstable ground.
No matter what our belief systems are, no matter what our political tendencies are, dignity is a value we all should all hold dear, this situation isn't. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 01:41:16 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I believe that SC can no longer deny that this thread, one that they open mindedly started has proven that their decision ... was tainted with favoritism from the very start. |
I'll deny any such thing. The parties involved were treated the same as we would treat anyone else under the same circumstances, there was no element of "favoritism" involved.
Sure, some people disagree with every decision we make -- sometimes some of us disagree with each other (e.g. not every DQ is a unanimous vote). Check out any of the threads which discuss a DQ'd image and you'll find opinions on both sides.
However, we are charged by Langdon to do the best we can to enforce the site's rules, and until we hear otherwise from him I have to figure we are doing so to his satisfaction, which is all that really counts within the context of this site. This is not an anarchist collective, or even a representative democracy.
We are willing to listen to opinions, but I (for one) am not willing to tolerate attacks on my/our honesty or integrity.
FWIW you started this thread, and I don't think it was open-minded at all ... |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 01:52:53 PM · #86 |
| Well the old one got locked while people still wanted to discuss it. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 01:59:03 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Well the old one got locked while people still wanted to discuss it. |
That's because "some people" were no longer engaged in a serious discussion, but instead chose contribute only hyperbolic and frankly unconstructive suggestions. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 01:59:17 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I think we both know that the victim here probably has a clue who he or she is, maybe he or she would benefit from knowing why they were targeted for so long.
|
Do we know that?
I know that I would suspect myself to be a prime target if I didn't know the perp, given that I generally tend to paint a bright orange fluorescent target on my back regularly, via threads like this, or via my usual anti-religion warmongering.
I think we all piss people off, so I'm betting that while the target does suspect they were targeted, they're probably one of fifty such people who think they were targeted.
What I don't get at all, is the idea that they would benefit from knowing. Frankly, basically everyone knows when they piss someone off - and from what I know of this situation, the targeted party is fully aware of the issue, just not aware that they are, in fact, the targeted party. And I have yet to see you make a good argument as to the benefit of their knowing that they were the targeted individual. A vague 'maybe they would benefit' is far too weak of an argument to justify the SC and Langdon taking the LEGAL risk that would be associated with such a revelation.
I know you're French, and ya'll don't even have courts (joking) - but this site is US based, and we are, in fact, a sue-happy lot of fuckheads. I would not be at all surprised to see a lawsuit result if the information was released.
Of course, on the flip side, if you REALLY want to know, I'm betting you can file a lawsuit and get the information as a part of a discovery package. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 02:07:02 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mike:
Well the old one got locked while people still wanted to discuss it. |
That's because "some people" were no longer engaged in a serious discussion, but instead chose contribute only hyperbolic and frankly unconstructive suggestions. |
be careful, you wouldn't want to be accused of breaking any forum rules. :P |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 02:40:15 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
I believe that SC can no longer deny that this thread, one that they open mindedly started has proven that their decision ... was tainted with favoritism from the very start. |
I'll deny any such thing. The parties involved were treated the same as we would treat anyone else under the same circumstances, there was no element of "favoritism" involved. |
How can you say that the parties were treated without any elements of favoritism, someone got victimized and doesn't get to know by who, the guilty party doesn't get told to make apologies to the community or the main victim. Then of course we get to know through the grapevine that the cheater is popular and that it wouldn't go down well to reveal them. General you don't even have an argument, you are simply angry because someone is challenging your judgement and your authority.
Message edited by author 2015-03-05 15:46:32. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 03:49:18 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
I believe that SC can no longer deny that this thread, one that they open mindedly started has proven that their decision ... was tainted with favoritism from the very start. |
I'll deny any such thing. The parties involved were treated the same as we would treat anyone else under the same circumstances, there was no element of "favoritism" involved. |
How can you say that the parties were treated without any elements of favoritism, someone got victimized and doesn't get to know by who, the guilty party doesn't get told to make apologies to the community or the main victim. Then of course we get to know through the grapevine that the cheater is popular and it wouldn't go down well. General you don't even have an argument, you are simply angry because somone is challenging your judgement and your authority. |
Please cite precedent of a case where this was done differently. Without that, your cries of favoritism are baseless, as this currently seems to be SOP, not favoritism.
I really do love your premise that 'the' cheater is popular, and that it logically follows that this indicates favoritism (just because the person is popular, and I'm not saying they are, but even if they are, that in and of itself does not show favoritism.) There were two, are you proposing that both were popular? Because if not, then that very argument actually destroys the favoritism argument, as both people were treated exactly the same.
I mean, I appreciate that you think you're standing up for the 'little guy' here, but let's recognize a few facts:
1. There are two parties in this dispute, without a single doubt, both have some level of responsibility for the feud.
2. Your continued attacks upon the SC will probably end badly, not because they'll retaliate, but because you really are impugning the wrong folks here - I think almost all of us think they have a hard job and do it to the best of their abilities, with moral standards that are, in fact, superior to most committees of a similar nature.
3. This is not a democracy, nor a republic, nor a police department, nor a newspaper, nor anything more or less than a private business which can, by US law, pretty much do whatever the hell it wants to do with this, short of releasing information which could potentially open up legal liability. (Imagine this scenario: Victim finds out, gets super angry, shoots the low voter and kills them. Would you then be here blaming SC for inciting a murder based on information that could possibly be somehow wrong?)
4. You are wasting your time, and amusing me. I'm sure you'd rather not do either. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 04:08:00 PM · #92 |
Cory I happen to know that there are members on this site that want and congratulate me for doing this and that the main reason they do not voice their opinion is your degrading replies.
I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't have the backing. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 04:20:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Cory I happen to know that there are members on this site that want and congratulate me for doing this and that the main reason they do not voice their opinion is your degrading replies.
I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't have the backing. |
Just because you're not alone doesn't indicate that you are right.
And, I'd suggest they all report me, in masse, for my 'degrading' replies, as personally I'm glad something is keeping them from spouting the same stuff you're currently filling the forum with.
ETA: I asked for a citation of precedent. I'll assume that your choosing to go ad-hominem here is a tacit admission that you don't have any such thing to contribute.
ETA2: This is actually me struggling to be polite. I'd love to be able to speak freely here, but DPC isn't that kind of place.
Message edited by author 2015-03-05 16:27:25. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 04:23:52 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Cory I happen to know that there are members on this site that want and congratulate me for doing this and that the main reason they do not voice their opinion is your degrading replies. |
So they don't want their names "outed" because they might be subject to replies? What happened to the commitment to 100% transparency in all matters related to the functioning of the site? Do you not see the irony (nee hypocrisy) of your post? |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 04:43:25 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I'll assume that your choosing to go ad-hominem here
|
I dont know why anyone would choose that, hominy is gross |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 04:52:59 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Cory I happen to know that there are members on this site that want and congratulate me for doing this and that the main reason they do not voice their opinion is your degrading replies. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So they don't want their names "outed" because they might be subject to replies? What happened to the commitment to 100% transparency in all matters related to the functioning of the site? Do you not see the irony (nee hypocrisy) of your post? |
Oh, SNAP!!!!
LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2015 05:16:22 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Cory I happen to know that there are members on this site that want and congratulate me for doing this and that the main reason they do not voice their opinion is your degrading replies.
I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't have the backing. |
We want the names... without the names there is no proof.
Ray
OOPS... should have read the rest of the comments.
Message edited by author 2015-03-05 17:17:48. |
|
|
|
03/05/2015 07:04:38 PM · #98 |
| I believe this thread just ate itself. |
|
|
|
03/06/2015 01:04:50 AM · #99 |
| Names are coming, including the name of the main culprit. |
|
|
|
03/06/2015 01:15:17 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Names are coming, including the name of the main culprit. |
Nothing would please me more than to see you actually post this... It'll be funny if you are right, it'll be even funnier if you're wrong. |
|
