Above Political Correctness

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Such evidence would be allowed to determine punishment once a jury sentenced someone as guilty for the present crime, yes. Theoretically speaking if a Moderator said "under the rules NonCon is guilty -- and determining his guilt was based on evidence of his present actions alone and not his past acts" -- then after determining that NonCon was guilty, the evidence would be introduced and NonCon would get a stricter penalty.

Problem was the wording of Shiney's previous posts suggested that he relied upon NonCon's past reputation in determining his propensity to act the same way this time around in order to prove he was overreacting and therefore breaking the rules. If Shiney had said "I analyzed the evidence of NonCon and TDK's respective actions impartially, concluded objectively that NonCon was the one predominantly responsible, and then took past evidence into account solely to determine what punishment to assign him," yeah, that's within the bounds of the American legal system.

Originally Posted by Fenris

You've been down this road too many times for me to give you just another warning. I'll see you in ten days.

It wasn't Shiney but it was still a moderator.

[Meister]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

If a cohesive system of rules were in place we'd actually know when we're able to / supposed to report posts as we'd have a halfway decent idea as to whether someone has committed an offense a Moderator will take seriously.

You should report a post absolutely every time you see one that you think violates the rules or needs to be looked at, without exception. We're not going to get angry at, think any less of or ridicule anyone who reports a post that is actually completely okay.

[Thadius]

Wait.

You lot yelled enough about this that you awoke the other mods from their slumber beyond the infinite?

Good job. Are we done here now? Can we please be done here?

[Krylo]

I gotta head to work so I can't finish these last two pages, but I want to say this:

Snake, no one treated you like Noncon treats people. At least not without getting banned. No one looked at a post conservative snake made and said, "Jesus Christ, Snake, if you don't agree with me you are a woman hating baby murdering sociopathic shitfucker and THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT" and then when someone was like, "Woah guy, maybe that's a bit much," no one flew off on them in the same manner.

What happened to you, and to Bob, and to every other conservative member is basically this: "Ugh no, how could you be this stupid? Listen, trickle down economics does not work that way because the x% of the richest people already have x% of the money and it isn't trickling down, and here's this factoid and this factoid." or "Jesus, seriously? You listen to that disingenuous asshole Beck? He's a goddamn moron! He lies (examples) and insults anyone he doesn't agree with baselessly (examples)" etc. etc.

What Nonsie does, and gets banned for, isn't helpful to anyone. He doesn't provide facts, he doesn't argue points. All he does is say "HEY YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU ARE A DICK!"

And yeah, he's usually CORRECT in that people that don't agree with him are being pretty dickish, but that has never in the history of ever changed somebody's mind.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Snake are you seriously saying that you have an issue with the fact that NonCon got a punishment because he did a thing that he has been told several times in the past not to do?

Like, is this a thing that is happening? Because I was taking the most wonderful nap and I would really like to know if this is a thing that is happening.

My most recent half-facetious argument re: the American criminal justice system was predominantly in response to Shiney insinuating that I was dumb because "as a law school student I should know better," when in reality as a law school student I've been taught the exact opposite principle as the one I felt he was suggesting law school should have taught me, namely that past acts evidence can't be introduced to prove character propensity to commit an action to prove guilt.

IF Shiney / Fenris relied upon NonCon's past behaviors solely to justify a stricter punishment and NOT to determine NonCon's actual likelihood of committing an infraction in the first place, then my point is moot and was based on a mere misunderstanding of what Shiney typed.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Such evidence would be allowed to determine punishment once a jury sentenced someone as guilty for the present crime, yes. Theoretically speaking if a Moderator said "under the rules NonCon is guilty -- and determining his guilt was based on evidence of his present actions alone and not his past acts" -- then after determining that NonCon was guilty, the evidence would be introduced and NonCon would get a stricter penalty.

Problem was the wording of Shiney's previous posts suggested that he relied upon NonCon's past reputation in determining his propensity to act the same way this time around in order to prove he was overreacting and therefore breaking the rules. If Shiney had said "I analyzed the evidence of NonCon and TDK's respective actions impartially, concluded objectively that NonCon was the one predominantly responsible, and then took past evidence into account solely to determine what punishment to assign him," yeah, that's within the bounds of the American legal system.

But...but...Shiny didn't ban him.
Shiny made a comment about the situation as he saw it and at a later point in time Fenris in what he described as an "Objectively as possible" way decided NonCon was at fault.

Originally Posted by Thadius

You lot yelled enough about this that you awoke the other mods from their slumber beyond the infinite?

Man I was thinking the same thing it's like all of a sudden one of our posts contained the song that ends the Earth and now the stars are right and the Elder Mods are rising.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

IF Shiney / Fenris relied upon NonCon's past behaviors solely to justify a stricter punishment

This is the thing this is happening.

and NOT to determine NonCon's actual likelihood of committing an infraction in the first place

how the fuck does that even work on a forum

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

IF Shiney / Fenris relied upon NonCon's past behaviors solely to justify a stricter punishment and NOT to determine NonCon's actual likelihood of committing an infraction in the first place, then my point is moot and was based on a mere misunderstanding of what Shiney typed.

Originally Posted by Fenris

You've been down this road too many times for me to give you just another warning. I'll see you in ten days.

.

[shiney]

And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.

[Melfice]

Originally Posted by shiney

And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.

He shaves his legs, so a moustache seems out of the question.
I think you got the right NonCon.