2
« on: February 20, 2012, 09:35:11 AM »
Since the original topic was neither resolved or the ongoing conversation finished, I am reopening this thread on the basis that this is still very much a concern and thus viable for this subforum.
First of all, I want to make absolutely clear what my stance on the matter is since there appear to be some misconceptions flying around: I do not hold the story I presented in the first thread as "the Truth", I merely present it as the story that I believe in, and as an alternative theory that works just as viably under the light of the "evidence" the administration team has brought up as the theory the administration team choose to believe in.
My point, which was brought up multiple times and yet at large ignored or disregarded, was that since PizzaPlanet's actions can be explained viably under the premise that he isn't guilty, said actions cannot be held to suggest that he is, and only is, guilty. Just think of it as a simple 50/50 equation: 50% chance that the story the administration team has told is true and that he is guilty, and 50% chance that my story or Parsifal's story is true and that he is not guilty. That simply leaves us with the administration banning a member based on a mere 50% chance.
Yes, this means that the administration team could have gotten it right and banned the guilty individual, but it also means that they potentially banned someone who is not guilty at all. Now, I ask you: Which is more important, making sure that when something bad happens, someone is held accountable for the actions and punished accordingly, even if doing so does not secure us from further attacks at all, or that we make sure that no innocent people are punished? If the official stance of the administration is the former, then I back out and submit to being a member of a possibly very fascist community that hold the Guantanamo Bay approach of justice as being viable and justified. If it's the latter, then I urge everyone (and especially those in the administration) to reconsider this whole fiasco and maybe take into account that perhaps your personal beliefs on the matter are wrong (Wilmore, especially, should consider this, since he is clearly buttravaged by whatever PizzaPlanet has said to him and has since taken the decision to ban him into personal matters zone).
If you can conclusively show that Parsifal could not have been behind the attacks, then I rest my case and withdraw my argument. But as it stands, your evidence is the following: a) both the servers of PizzaPlanet and Parsifal (according to Jack) were involved in the attack (Since Wilmore ignored the involvement of Parsifal's server in the original thread, this clearly shows how insincere his motives are regarding this ban), and b) PizzaPlanet has confirmedly either misspoken or lied about something that is only slightly related to the incident and not worth lying about in the event that he is guilty, and possibly lied about the story involving his friend which, again, would have made more sense to lie about in the event that he isn't guilty and his motives are elsewhere. I'll let the lot of you to come to your personal conclusions on whether or not this evidence is in the least bit conclusive. As for the administration team, either pick the Guantanamo Bay approach and ban Parsifal as well for the sake of fairness, or stop sucking Wilmore's cock and come to your own senses.
As for the argument that was constantly being thrown in the previous thread, "but he admitted guilt!" No, he didn't, he merely admitted responsibility for having his server involved in the attack. This does not mean asking to be banned, nor would banning him be a logical solution in the event that he didn't perform the attacks himself. He's offered monetary compensations: this shouldn't be expected from him if he's unjustly banned, so instead of accepting his offering to repair the damages, you're banning him based on the mere potential that he is guilty of the attacks. Which is more helpful for the society as a whole? Are you so ban-trigger-happy that you must ban someone even when you have no clear evidence suggesting who to ban, and even when a more appropriate solution has been offered?
Ask yourselves if that's good moderation. I certainly do not think it is, and I hope to god the users here do not either.
Show Posts