Originally posted by orfeoIf theft is bad, how come off-shore tax havens are allowed, yet someone starving can't take a piece of bread?
Shav, if you're screaming and bawling when people decide [b]theft is bad, I for one will tell you to shut up.
The world simply can't function in a way where no-one is allowed to set rules and make decisions. Otherwise, what's to stop me from getting on the next plane to Holland, tracking you down and chopping your head off.
Oh yes, that's right. ...[text shortened]... '? We're not ruining their lives, all that's being done is they are being told to leave. Now.[/b]
If murder is bad, how come we can kill 100.000 civilian Iraquees, yet someone is locked up for killing in self-defence?
If you open your eyes Orfeo, you will see that there is no black and white, only shades of grey. The majority seem to think that just because they determine which shades of grey are relevant on which occasions, that they can automatically piss on the shades which are not.
That, my learned friend, I will continue to point out. Here, there and everywhere I go.
The evidence of disrespect is the link in the first post in this thread, by the way.
Originally posted by shavixmirJust because it is grey everywhere else doesn't mean we cant light a torch here!
If theft is bad, how come off-shore tax havens are allowed, yet someone starving can't take a piece of bread?
If murder is bad, how come we can kill 100.000 civilian Iraquees, yet someone is locked up for killing in self-defence?
If you open your eyes Orfeo, you will see that there is no black and white, only shades of grey. The majority seem to t ...[text shortened]... e I go.
The evidence of disrespect is the link in the first post in this thread, by the way.
RTh
Originally posted by shavixmirDo you make up these numbers as you go along.
If theft is bad, how come off-shore tax havens are allowed, yet someone starving can't take a piece of bread?
If murder is bad, how come we can kill 100.000 civilian Iraquees, yet someone is locked up for killing in self-defence?
..there is no black and white, only shades of grey.
The official "civilian body count" is less than a third of your figure.[and they were not murders in any case]
You also imply that because off shore tax havens are legal, theft should be legalised for the hungry.
You say there are no black and whites and then that there should be.
Basically you talk a load of crap.
Can we start again please.
To summarise.
This Thread is about the detection, inditement, prosecution and punishment of those who break the rules of this site.
While it is diverting to discuss Iraq dead, tax havens, peanut butter odour emitting canines etc and illustrates various points they are in fact digressions.
Let us state the facts:-
1. I Dont think ANYONE disagrees with the fact that the membership in general or any of us in person do not have any legal or perhaps moral right to dicate what the owners of this site can do.
Anyone disagree with this point?
2. Some have made the point that it is commercially wise to listen to the views of the membership and take these into account and most would say that the site owners do this.
Anyone disagree with this point?
I thought not.
SO NOW CAN WE STOP REPEATING THESE POINTS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND GET ONTO THE CORE OF THE DEBATE.
Which is as i see it:-
1. Is the current system of:-
a. Banning without explanation or apparent oppertunity to explain, or provide excuse, counter arguement.
b. A single penalty of expulsion rather then a range of penalties to fit the crime.
c. Complete lack of clarity and visability as to the crime, evidence and due process.
d. Concentrate power in the hands of the few that is wielded behind closed doors.
The best that could be achieved?
2. Should the system evolve just like other aspects of the site, as what is the chance of getting it right first go?
Putting to one side our right to debate these points (and any others that are related).
What could be a better system and what are the pros and cons of this one.
I must confess i still like my idea of a crime and punishment forum where those under investication could be listed and the whole thing played out. At least it will stop people playing against those under suspicion, serve to publically clear peoples names and be a damm good forum for dispute and discussion.
The other possability is that i dont suspect that Russ wants to kick ot subscribers and decrease his income so why can he not put people on 'watch'.
"You are being monitored tidy up your act."
This could be done publically or privately. A kind of parole ... we know you dont really want to cheat... here is a chance to reform and feel better about yourselve type thing.
Originally posted by DeepfaultI am only commenting on the point I quoted.
Can we start again please.
[cut]
"You are being monitored tidy up your act."
This could be done publically or privately. A kind of parole ... we know you dont really want to cheat... here is a chance to reform and feel better about yourselve type thing.
Problem is: Do people want other players who have cheated by engine use put their trust to them in future. Or do they want people removed who did cheat once.
Of course we are agin on the problem punishment, that fits. But if there are players using their engine 'only' when they don't knwo how to proceed should they stay?
Or if they used their enigine, 'just because the other was subscribing to a tourney where he did not belong'...
Shades of gray: Where do you draw the line?
I presume it is as simple as it can be just now: Anybody who is caught using an engine is off. Fullstop.
Edit: error in formatting
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveWell, no. I don't make these numbers up.
Do you make up these numbers as you go along.
The official "civilian body count" is less than a third of your figure.[and they were not murders in any case]
You also imply that because off shore tax havens are legal, theft should be legalised for the hungry.
You say there are no black and whites and then that there should be.
Basically you talk a load of crap.
The Body count death toll is 26.000 (which is still asocial, in my books), other counts range from between 30 to 100 thousand deaths.
The number of dead children from 1990 to 2000 is +500.000 due to cancer. This number is the amount above the amount of child deaths related to cancer in the previous decade. Read John Pilger for the details.
Again, I read someone suggesting that murder and mass killing of civilians are two different things. A pacifist would consider the killing of a soldier also murder. It just depends on your point of view.
I never say there should be black and whites. It's impossible, because there are only shades of grey when it comes to wrong and right.
Obviously you think I talk a load of crap, that's because you're too stupid to comprehend what I'm saying. Much like I think Stephen Hawking's is full of it. Not because he is, but because I don't understand what he's saying.
It's that simple.
EDIT: Just for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
I advocate the following changes to the site.
There will be various awards available for those who regularly use the forums. The first will be called the "Rainbow Mud" award, and will be presented to the person who can degrade and insult other posters in the most imaginative and (of course) grammatically correct way.
The second will be the "1st place ultimate top-man non-loser, winner supreme mega redundent award of redundency". This will be given to the most redundent sentence created containing not more than five trillion characters.
The third will be the "You can't, but I will" award, avaible for those who consider hypocrisy their specialty.
The fourth will be the "Can't you even spell fcuk right?" award for the poster who makes it his/her duty to correct the grammer and spelling of others.
In addition to these prestigious titles, we will also limit membership in the following ways.
Those who cheat shall be tied up and handcuffed, forced to hold a massive pink dildo in their mouth, wear nothing but a loincloth, and visit the homes of all they have wronged and confess their sins. They shall dance around ridiculously and generally degrade themselves. They shall not remove the dildo for any reason.
Those who expose cheaters shall be granted thier own island, where they will all go and live happily ever after. A fairy will come periodically to grant them wishes, at a frequeny of two per month, and congigal visits made by swimsuit models shall occur every hour, on the hour. They shall want for naught, and their words shall be as law...
Those who advocate dissenting opinions shall be publicly tarred and feathered by the RHP community. Everyone will have a chance to slander and abuse them, and the finals of the "Rainbow Mud" competition shall occur at this time.
Anyone who is against unclear or unconnected analogies shall be shot on sight, as analogies are near to the hearts of RHP users. This law overrides all others.
To the management, please review the suggested changes and implement them as soon as possible.
Originally posted by shavixmirHaha, the Steven Hawking of RHC has spoken.
Obviously you think I talk a load of crap, that's because you're too stupid to comprehend what I'm saying. Much like I think Stephen Hawking's is full of it. Not because he is, but because I don't understand what he's saying.
You actually make yourself sound stupid by writing stupid things. I haven't said you ARE stupid, just that some of the crap you spout parrot fashion is stupid.