|
On February 21 2015 01:37 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 01:08 TheRealArtemis wrote:
The whole TS report seems like a load of PC BS. It doesnt seem right that they cant find anything when so many people have come forward with claims about her. The report admits they cannot disprove basically any of the claims. Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 01:09 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
She realized that no matter what she did she would be continuously treated as a fraud; even if she went to that tournament and won people would have said she was on vocal or something. This is a poor argument and I'll show you why by looking at it in the simplest form. 2 possibilities: A. You are a bad HS player and have been having other people play for you. B. You are a very good HS player and have been playing for yourself. If A. then in this situation you are left with 1 option: 1. You back out. You can't afford to show up to a tournament because then it will be obvious. The jig is up, this is your only option. If B then: 1. You back out. You claim you are sensitive and find the situation too stressful. Your reputation remains tarnished. 2. You boost your credibility by showing up at a tournament and don't make any obviously stupid mistakes. You are assuming B1 but if you are in fact a good HS player who in their right mind doesn't choose option 2? B1 is possible but A1 or B2 are far more likely. B2 is so easy if you are as good as "magicamy" is. Sure there will always be doubters but even if she attended a single tournament and didn't play like an idiot I would be likely to side with her. However, she went with option 1 so I have to use the more likely scenario.
Putting some text and numbered points below an argument doesn't give it any credibility.
There is no generalized behaviour that you can rationally sum up the way you did, everyone acts differently, sometimes logically, sometimes not, it depends. There is no point trying to draw schemes for that.
The only true thing is that no one ever came up with a 100% clear evidence that magicamy did what she is accused of.
From there those without proper authority/knowledge to judge the case who jump on conclusions based on incomplete "evidence" are just a bunch of fucks.
I don't know if she is innocent or not; but if she is it totally makes sense to me that she backs out without explanation, no reason to give any attention to some random scumbags.
If she is guilty it would be revealed eventually.
And in both case you don't need random bored kids entertaining drama. Since fraud will be exposed sooner or later anyway (teams don't need you guys to investigate their players); the only thing it does is possibly drive the wrongly accused people away from this shit scene.
|
On February 21 2015 02:49 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 02:00 vRadiatioNv wrote:On February 21 2015 01:38 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:14 vRadiatioNv wrote:On February 21 2015 00:45 ddayzy wrote:On February 20 2015 23:46 pannra wrote:On February 20 2015 23:33 litlnoobs wrote:On February 20 2015 22:42 pannra wrote:
Wow when they start bringing up Glen Beck you know the Liberals/Feminazis haven't a leg to stand on. MagicAmy was a public figure. Any public figure is guilty until proven innocent. Any public figure that is innocent will do what it takes to clear their name. Lee was given the chance to clear her name but decided against it. In the real world that means she's guilty. Not sure if serious... Of course you're not sure. You don't live in the real world. Look at what happened to Cosby. Some chics claim he raped them like 50 years ago. No evidence at all. No police reports because not a single one of them pressed charges. Yet people still assume he's a rapist. This isn't a court of law. Public figures are guilty until proven innocent and it's on them to prove their innocence. MagicAmy had multiple chances and was just given another chance to prove her innocence. Yet she refuses, once again, to clear her name. MagicAmy was investigated and cleared. She wasn't cleared. You guys need to learn how to read PR. This is what it says: Tempo Storm can prove that "Hyerim Lee" is a real person (this was never in dispute). Tempo Storm CANNOT prove that: 1. She didn't scam people (in fact they admit she probably did but want to overlook it as 'personal issues'). 2. She has been playing for herself (they admit they can't prove she has never botted either). A lot of what was said in the article demonstrates a lack of understanding. For example, they say that the fact that she wasn't banned in Blizzards bot banning waves supports that she is not a botter. Sure, but let's not pretend that Blizzard is perfect and catches and bans every botter. Also they question what Amy's "endgame" plan for this con scheme would have been by saying "she would have had to show up at a tournament eventually." The whole point of this type of con is to make as much money as possible before you get found out and I'm pretty sure she could have coasted on excuses for a LONG time (heck, she did with all the other people she took money from). The fact that TS gave her the opportunity to stay and participate in a live event and she turned them down is pretty damning. If you don't believe in a human right so basic as innocent until proven guilty we don't have a fundament to argue on. Your argument boils down to "She has not proven her innocence" which she has no obligation to do. I'm not arguing wheather or not she did any of the things she is accused of because we don't know, and that's the point. It's not about guilt, it's about hundreds of self rightious judge/jury/executioners comming out of the woodworks to join in a mob and go after someone which has not been proven guilty. The modern day pillroy. And after throwing shit at a peson who has not been proven guilty you demand they get out in front of you and jump through hoops until you are satisfied. You really think this is how a human being should be treated? There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence against her and you seem to be in denial about/pretending it doesn't exist. Tempo Storm themselves disagree with you and have found it necessary for her to prove herself. Basically everything in this case pointed to her not playing for herself and all she had to do is what is already in her contract to clear herself: show up at a live event. She backed down which is as much of an admission of guilt as you will ever get. I haven't even commented on issue until today because I wanted to see what came out. The evidence stands and she backs down. How can I reach any other conclusion? Can you provide the conclusive evidence which proves without doubt that she did this?
Rofl. I knew it. You're the type of person where even if a person owns a gun and has fingerprints on it they didn't necessarily shoot it because the person who did could have worn gloves, lol. By your logic EVERYTHING is circumstantial. What do you expect, video evidence? Even that can be faked bro. You're in denial and are incredibly naive. If we went by your logic we could never convict anyone of anything. Eventually you have to realize that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Live in the real world, please, this isn't the Matrix.
Besides this isn't a freaking court of law here. We're all people who have opinions and those of us who are rational and unbiased will look at the whole picture and use the evidence to draw conclusions. Literally every bit of her behavior suggests that she is a fraud so at this point I have no reason to conclude otherwise. As I mentioned all she had to do was show up at an event and that would have cleared her in many people's eyes but she couldn't even do that. I was prepared to re-evaluate on her but she has given me no reason to do so. Maybe she will in the future.
This is my last comment on this topic. I feel the rational, unbiased people have already laid it out well enough that the rational, unbiased onlookers will be able to get the picture.
|
On February 21 2015 03:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, she's innocent until proven guilty.
However, at this point she's effectively guilty of engaging in 'shady behavior' (make of that what you will) and as a consequence has been let go from TS and is (presumably) banned from online tournaments. As far as I can tell she's still welcome to offline events, and welcome to return to online events once her offline play has been observed.
Outside of any derogatory comments made towards her (which generally just shouldn't happen) it seems like a pretty reasonable outcome. where does it say she is banned from online tournaments?
No where, as far as I know. As the situation stands I don't think she's going to be getting invited to tournaments, which is pretty close to a ban. I'm not sure how much discretion organizers have when there's an open qualifier, so maybe that route is still open to her.
|
On February 21 2015 03:28 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 02:50 Ricjames wrote:
This thread just turned into fight between those who think she is a scam and those who defend her. I have some news for you all. It doesn't matter at all anymore. Everything was said and done and you can't change it anymore.
There is so much evidence against her that it is nearly impossible that she would be totally innocent and just a victim of angry internet kids. Also it is not that teenage boys on twitch chat accused her of something, but respected community members and pro players came up with something against her. Also many of them stated that they were suspicious for some time already, but didn't want to be stirring the water until more evidence came out.
Some people are just so ignorant that i sometimes wonder how can that even be possible. I am not saying she is guilty, i am saying that there is a huge probability that she is not legit and a money scam. She had a chance to prove herself, but refused and back out. Ok, she might be sick of this community and whatsoever that she didn't want to deal with it anymore, but If you are smart enough to become a pro HS player and you have a nice chance to achieve something and even make money of it (especially in her money hungry scenario), I doubt you would just back out. Also I am sure that among respected community, she would prove herself by showing up at a LAN tournament and playing at her average level (everyone can lose, but still play decent). Maybe she would remain guilty for those angry internet kids, but who cares about them....If she will be respected among the pro community, she will steadily get her respect everywhere else.
Also i have to laugh at those who say: This all happened just because she is a girl. Honestly I am a bit disappointed that it had to end like this. I definately think HS needs more good female players. It is suprising to you that people have oposing views on a subject and that those views would be discussed in a post dedicated to that subject? Of course it matters, your behaviour is not justified by it being done. When it comes to hearthstone I sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between a fair chunk of the streamers and angry internet kids, they seem to feed of eachother. You are not saying she is guilty you are just saying she is probably guilty?  Would you seriously want to stay after all this? I am sure there are some who would but not wanting to after this is hardly proof of guilt. I'm not arguing there is not evidence, neither am I arguing probability, I'm arguing that giving people not proven guilty the guilty treatment is a shitty way of behaving.
Do i really have to explain this to you? If i was at her place and one of my biggest recent life goals would be to achieve being a pro HS player and even be able to make money by it (as it seemed in her case), I would definately not be stopped by some circlejerking internet boys if i knew i am innocent. I find it hard to believe that someone can have a "dream" and just give up like that. If you do not see the reality in this, then you must be really ignorant or never had any goal in life except maybe arguing/trolling on the internet. I might even call you a little slow if you dont understand how pathetic (or unrealistic) her giving up looks like. She pretty much proven herslef guilty in my eyes.
|
On February 21 2015 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 03:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 21 2015 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, she's innocent until proven guilty.
However, at this point she's effectively guilty of engaging in 'shady behavior' (make of that what you will) and as a consequence has been let go from TS and is (presumably) banned from online tournaments. As far as I can tell she's still welcome to offline events, and welcome to return to online events once her offline play has been observed.
Outside of any derogatory comments made towards her (which generally just shouldn't happen) it seems like a pretty reasonable outcome. where does it say she is banned from online tournaments? No where, as far as I know. As the situation stands I don't think she's going to be getting invited to tournaments, which is pretty close to a ban. I'm not sure how much discretion organizers have when there's an open qualifier, so maybe that route is still open to her.
i dont know about this. the only thing she appears guilty of is scamming some pathetic dudes--although her side has never been presented so who knows. not sure tournament organizes would ban someone from tournaments for personal issues like this.
regardless, she has effectively banned herself from the tournament scene by retiring.
|
United States252 Posts
The internet misogynists strike again. I don't understand why people don't want women to play video games, I thought it was all nerds dreams to see girls? I don't blame her for leaving, why would anybody want to stay and have to deal with this crap? All this does is discourage new female players from playing.
|
On February 21 2015 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 21 2015 03:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 21 2015 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, she's innocent until proven guilty.
However, at this point she's effectively guilty of engaging in 'shady behavior' (make of that what you will) and as a consequence has been let go from TS and is (presumably) banned from online tournaments. As far as I can tell she's still welcome to offline events, and welcome to return to online events once her offline play has been observed.
Outside of any derogatory comments made towards her (which generally just shouldn't happen) it seems like a pretty reasonable outcome. where does it say she is banned from online tournaments? No where, as far as I know. As the situation stands I don't think she's going to be getting invited to tournaments, which is pretty close to a ban. I'm not sure how much discretion organizers have when there's an open qualifier, so maybe that route is still open to her. i dont know about this. the only thing she appears guilty of is scamming some pathetic dudes--although her side has never been presented so who knows. not sure tournament organizes would ban someone from tournaments for personal issues like this. regardless, she has effectively banned herself from the tournament scene by retiring.
Elyot of Prismata has also claimed to be scammed by her. Like I said, 'shady stuff' and people should only take that for what it is and nothing more.
Personally I think if she can demonstrate half-decent play that's good enough for me. I liked watching her play, and it's always sad to see a cute grill leave.
|
On February 21 2015 04:14 LastManProductions wrote:
The internet misogynists strike again. I don't understand why people don't want women to play video games, I thought it was all nerds dreams to see girls? I don't blame her for leaving, why would anybody want to stay and have to deal with this crap? All this does is discourage new female players from playing.
again, you are the one making this about misogony. Stop being a sexist pig. No one condemns anyone because of their gender, and the investigation most likely was not conducted due to a gender either. Please go read up on the actual accusations, on how this investigation developed in the first place and that she even got off lightly compared to RDU ("hi mom") and the shitstorm he had to face.
|
On February 21 2015 03:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 02:49 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 02:00 vRadiatioNv wrote:On February 21 2015 01:38 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:14 vRadiatioNv wrote:On February 21 2015 00:45 ddayzy wrote:On February 20 2015 23:46 pannra wrote:On February 20 2015 23:33 litlnoobs wrote:On February 20 2015 22:42 pannra wrote:
Wow when they start bringing up Glen Beck you know the Liberals/Feminazis haven't a leg to stand on. MagicAmy was a public figure. Any public figure is guilty until proven innocent. Any public figure that is innocent will do what it takes to clear their name. Lee was given the chance to clear her name but decided against it. In the real world that means she's guilty. Not sure if serious... Of course you're not sure. You don't live in the real world. Look at what happened to Cosby. Some chics claim he raped them like 50 years ago. No evidence at all. No police reports because not a single one of them pressed charges. Yet people still assume he's a rapist. This isn't a court of law. Public figures are guilty until proven innocent and it's on them to prove their innocence. MagicAmy had multiple chances and was just given another chance to prove her innocence. Yet she refuses, once again, to clear her name. MagicAmy was investigated and cleared. She wasn't cleared. You guys need to learn how to read PR. This is what it says: Tempo Storm can prove that "Hyerim Lee" is a real person (this was never in dispute). Tempo Storm CANNOT prove that: 1. She didn't scam people (in fact they admit she probably did but want to overlook it as 'personal issues'). 2. She has been playing for herself (they admit they can't prove she has never botted either). A lot of what was said in the article demonstrates a lack of understanding. For example, they say that the fact that she wasn't banned in Blizzards bot banning waves supports that she is not a botter. Sure, but let's not pretend that Blizzard is perfect and catches and bans every botter. Also they question what Amy's "endgame" plan for this con scheme would have been by saying "she would have had to show up at a tournament eventually." The whole point of this type of con is to make as much money as possible before you get found out and I'm pretty sure she could have coasted on excuses for a LONG time (heck, she did with all the other people she took money from). The fact that TS gave her the opportunity to stay and participate in a live event and she turned them down is pretty damning. If you don't believe in a human right so basic as innocent until proven guilty we don't have a fundament to argue on. Your argument boils down to "She has not proven her innocence" which she has no obligation to do. I'm not arguing wheather or not she did any of the things she is accused of because we don't know, and that's the point. It's not about guilt, it's about hundreds of self rightious judge/jury/executioners comming out of the woodworks to join in a mob and go after someone which has not been proven guilty. The modern day pillroy. And after throwing shit at a peson who has not been proven guilty you demand they get out in front of you and jump through hoops until you are satisfied. You really think this is how a human being should be treated? There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence against her and you seem to be in denial about/pretending it doesn't exist. Tempo Storm themselves disagree with you and have found it necessary for her to prove herself. Basically everything in this case pointed to her not playing for herself and all she had to do is what is already in her contract to clear herself: show up at a live event. She backed down which is as much of an admission of guilt as you will ever get. I haven't even commented on issue until today because I wanted to see what came out. The evidence stands and she backs down. How can I reach any other conclusion? Can you provide the conclusive evidence which proves without doubt that she did this? Rofl. I knew it. You're the type of person where even if a person owns a gun and has fingerprints on it they didn't necessarily shoot it because the person who did could have worn gloves, lol. By your logic EVERYTHING is circumstantial. What do you expect, video evidence? Even that can be faked bro. You're in denial and are incredibly naive. If we went by your logic we could never convict anyone of anything. Eventually you have to realize that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Live in the real world, please, this isn't the Matrix. Besides this isn't a freaking court of law here. We're all people who have opinions and those of us who are rational and unbiased will look at the whole picture and use the evidence to draw conclusions. Literally every bit of her behavior suggests that she is a fraud so at this point I have no reason to conclude otherwise. As I mentioned all she had to do was show up at an event and that would have cleared her in many people's eyes but she couldn't even do that. I was prepared to re-evaluate on her but she has given me no reason to do so. Maybe she will in the future. This is my last comment on this topic. I feel the rational, unbiased people have already laid it out well enough that the rational, unbiased onlookers will be able to get the picture.
I'm the kind of person who thinks you should be damned sure your accusations is true befor you mob up on someone and treat them like dirt. I'm glad you took the trouble of defining what my opinion on what conclusive evidence is without anyway of actually knowing, I sense a pattern here. I'm naive for wanting conclusive evidence befor claiming someone is guilty? I'm fairly sure that's being moral not niave. I have nothing to be in denial about, I have no way of knowing if she is guilty so I'm leaning on what Tempo Storm concluded after investigating. My objection is not to her guilt, which I have no way of knowing, but to mobbing up on someone because you think they are guilty.
|
On February 21 2015 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 21 2015 03:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 21 2015 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, she's innocent until proven guilty.
However, at this point she's effectively guilty of engaging in 'shady behavior' (make of that what you will) and as a consequence has been let go from TS and is (presumably) banned from online tournaments. As far as I can tell she's still welcome to offline events, and welcome to return to online events once her offline play has been observed.
Outside of any derogatory comments made towards her (which generally just shouldn't happen) it seems like a pretty reasonable outcome. where does it say she is banned from online tournaments? No where, as far as I know. As the situation stands I don't think she's going to be getting invited to tournaments, which is pretty close to a ban. I'm not sure how much discretion organizers have when there's an open qualifier, so maybe that route is still open to her. i dont know about this. the only thing she appears guilty of is scamming some pathetic dudes--although her side has never been presented so who knows. not sure tournament organizes would ban someone from tournaments for personal issues like this. regardless, she has effectively banned herself from the tournament scene by retiring.
Which is sad because Impact gloats about stealing a Yugioh collection worth thousands of dollars and still gets to host/cast tournaments with almost no repercussions (other than me and a couple of posters here boycotting, but honestly that's small potatoes).
Edit: Also I see on the sidebar that Hosty is still competing in tournaments too.
But we'll see if she makes a return will this have blown over? There was a lot of crap about RDU (which I personally don't think he was completely innocent of, but that's still speculation) and that's mostly gone away.
|
On February 21 2015 04:03 Ricjames wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 03:28 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 02:50 Ricjames wrote:
This thread just turned into fight between those who think she is a scam and those who defend her. I have some news for you all. It doesn't matter at all anymore. Everything was said and done and you can't change it anymore.
There is so much evidence against her that it is nearly impossible that she would be totally innocent and just a victim of angry internet kids. Also it is not that teenage boys on twitch chat accused her of something, but respected community members and pro players came up with something against her. Also many of them stated that they were suspicious for some time already, but didn't want to be stirring the water until more evidence came out.
Some people are just so ignorant that i sometimes wonder how can that even be possible. I am not saying she is guilty, i am saying that there is a huge probability that she is not legit and a money scam. She had a chance to prove herself, but refused and back out. Ok, she might be sick of this community and whatsoever that she didn't want to deal with it anymore, but If you are smart enough to become a pro HS player and you have a nice chance to achieve something and even make money of it (especially in her money hungry scenario), I doubt you would just back out. Also I am sure that among respected community, she would prove herself by showing up at a LAN tournament and playing at her average level (everyone can lose, but still play decent). Maybe she would remain guilty for those angry internet kids, but who cares about them....If she will be respected among the pro community, she will steadily get her respect everywhere else.
Also i have to laugh at those who say: This all happened just because she is a girl. Honestly I am a bit disappointed that it had to end like this. I definately think HS needs more good female players. It is suprising to you that people have oposing views on a subject and that those views would be discussed in a post dedicated to that subject? Of course it matters, your behaviour is not justified by it being done. When it comes to hearthstone I sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between a fair chunk of the streamers and angry internet kids, they seem to feed of eachother. You are not saying she is guilty you are just saying she is probably guilty? Would you seriously want to stay after all this? I am sure there are some who would but not wanting to after this is hardly proof of guilt. I'm not arguing there is not evidence, neither am I arguing probability, I'm arguing that giving people not proven guilty the guilty treatment is a shitty way of behaving. Do i really have to explain this to you? If i was at her place and one of my biggest recent life goals would be to achieve being a pro HS player and even be able to make money by it (as it seemed in her case), I would definately not be stopped by some circlejerking internet boys if i knew i am innocent. I find it hard to believe that someone can have a "dream" and just give up like that. If you do not see the reality in this, then you must be really ignorant or never had any goal in life except maybe arguing/trolling on the internet. I might even call you a little slow if you dont understand how pathetic (or unrealistic) her giving up looks like. She pretty much proven herslef guilty in my eyes.
Are you serious? You have been treated like shit by other players and the community and now they demand you stand in front of them and perform for them for theri satisfaction and if you lose you will be branded 100% guilty, and you think everyone would be strong enough to do this? I woulden't, this is not a community worth fighting to be a part of, that much we do have evidence of.
Loads of people give up on their dreams every second every day, do you think many people dream of working retail? They stop chasing them for different reasons, being trashed by the people suposedly supporting you and your peers would definitly be a good reason.
You being so narrow minded you cant concieve of other people having another perspective on this then you do speak volumes.
|
I thought Celerity's accusation that Tarei has been playing as MagicAmy on ladder and tournaments since Blizzcon made a lot more sense than the story that there is a world-class player named William Blaney that no one's ever heard of and hasn't played as himself at a single tournament.
But I guess there's no proof either way.
|
On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it.
Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a CIVIL case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The civil case standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called.
Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here, as you have been so adamantly proclaiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a preponderance of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. The circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly scammed would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam.
Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand.
|
On February 21 2015 05:37 focusfight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a civil case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The CIVIL suit standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called. Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here as you have been so adamantly claiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. I can promise you that circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly conned would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam. Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand.
are we applying the American criminal law in this case, since it involves a Canadian man, a Korean woman, and a bunch of international people?
|
On February 21 2015 04:51 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 04:03 Ricjames wrote:On February 21 2015 03:28 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 02:50 Ricjames wrote:
This thread just turned into fight between those who think she is a scam and those who defend her. I have some news for you all. It doesn't matter at all anymore. Everything was said and done and you can't change it anymore.
There is so much evidence against her that it is nearly impossible that she would be totally innocent and just a victim of angry internet kids. Also it is not that teenage boys on twitch chat accused her of something, but respected community members and pro players came up with something against her. Also many of them stated that they were suspicious for some time already, but didn't want to be stirring the water until more evidence came out.
Some people are just so ignorant that i sometimes wonder how can that even be possible. I am not saying she is guilty, i am saying that there is a huge probability that she is not legit and a money scam. She had a chance to prove herself, but refused and back out. Ok, she might be sick of this community and whatsoever that she didn't want to deal with it anymore, but If you are smart enough to become a pro HS player and you have a nice chance to achieve something and even make money of it (especially in her money hungry scenario), I doubt you would just back out. Also I am sure that among respected community, she would prove herself by showing up at a LAN tournament and playing at her average level (everyone can lose, but still play decent). Maybe she would remain guilty for those angry internet kids, but who cares about them....If she will be respected among the pro community, she will steadily get her respect everywhere else.
Also i have to laugh at those who say: This all happened just because she is a girl. Honestly I am a bit disappointed that it had to end like this. I definately think HS needs more good female players. It is suprising to you that people have oposing views on a subject and that those views would be discussed in a post dedicated to that subject? Of course it matters, your behaviour is not justified by it being done. When it comes to hearthstone I sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between a fair chunk of the streamers and angry internet kids, they seem to feed of eachother. You are not saying she is guilty you are just saying she is probably guilty? Would you seriously want to stay after all this? I am sure there are some who would but not wanting to after this is hardly proof of guilt. I'm not arguing there is not evidence, neither am I arguing probability, I'm arguing that giving people not proven guilty the guilty treatment is a shitty way of behaving. Do i really have to explain this to you? If i was at her place and one of my biggest recent life goals would be to achieve being a pro HS player and even be able to make money by it (as it seemed in her case), I would definately not be stopped by some circlejerking internet boys if i knew i am innocent. I find it hard to believe that someone can have a "dream" and just give up like that. If you do not see the reality in this, then you must be really ignorant or never had any goal in life except maybe arguing/trolling on the internet. I might even call you a little slow if you dont understand how pathetic (or unrealistic) her giving up looks like. She pretty much proven herslef guilty in my eyes. Are you serious? You have been treated like shit by other players and the community and now they demand you stand in front of them and perform for them for theri satisfaction and if you lose you will be branded 100% guilty, and you think everyone would be strong enough to do this? I woulden't, this is not a community worth fighting to be a part of, that much we do have evidence of. Loads of people give up on their dreams every second every day, do you think many people dream of working retail? They stop chasing them for different reasons, being trashed by the people suposedly supporting you and your peers would definitly be a good reason. You being so narrow minded you cant concieve of other people having another perspective on this then you do speak volumes.
Obviously you don't get it as you showed in multiple posts here and it's fine. I understand that some people just don't get it.
Comparing that little effort she had to show (taken she was so close) to people not quitting their job to do their dream job is just silly. I am done arguing with you as it is pointless. Hopefully other people took from my posts what was intended.
|
On February 21 2015 05:50 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 05:37 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a civil case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The CIVIL suit standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called. Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here as you have been so adamantly claiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. I can promise you that circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly conned would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam. Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand. are we applying the American criminal law in this case, since it involves a Canadian man, a Korean woman, and a bunch of international people?
Yes, I am applying general American criminal and civil law. There are probably international implications to this, but for the sake of argument (and for the fact that I only know American law) I am only addressing the US law.
|
On February 21 2015 05:56 focusfight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 05:50 ref4 wrote:On February 21 2015 05:37 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a civil case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The CIVIL suit standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called. Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here as you have been so adamantly claiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. I can promise you that circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly conned would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam. Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand. are we applying the American criminal law in this case, since it involves a Canadian man, a Korean woman, and a bunch of international people? Yes, I am applying general American criminal and civil law. There are certainly international implications to this, but for the sake of argument (and for the fact that I only know American law) I am only addressing the US law.
the funny thing is many jurisdictions apply a clear and convincing burden of proof for fraud in the US....
not that it matters in any way, i just love internet lawyers.
|
On February 21 2015 06:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 05:56 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 05:50 ref4 wrote:On February 21 2015 05:37 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a civil case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The CIVIL suit standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called. Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here as you have been so adamantly claiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. I can promise you that circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly conned would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam. Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand. are we applying the American criminal law in this case, since it involves a Canadian man, a Korean woman, and a bunch of international people? Yes, I am applying general American criminal and civil law. There are certainly international implications to this, but for the sake of argument (and for the fact that I only know American law) I am only addressing the US law. the funny thing is many jurisdictions apply a clear and convincing burden of proof for fraud in the US.... not that it matters in any way, i just love internet lawyers.
So you accuse me of being an internet lawyer when you just googled a jurisdictional split on the BoP for fraud?
You were correct: it certainly does not matter. "Clear and convincing" is still a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Nice try discrediting me, maybe next time.
|
On February 21 2015 06:11 focusfight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 06:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 21 2015 05:56 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 05:50 ref4 wrote:On February 21 2015 05:37 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a civil case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The CIVIL suit standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called. Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here as you have been so adamantly claiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. I can promise you that circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly conned would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam. Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand. are we applying the American criminal law in this case, since it involves a Canadian man, a Korean woman, and a bunch of international people? Yes, I am applying general American criminal and civil law. There are certainly international implications to this, but for the sake of argument (and for the fact that I only know American law) I am only addressing the US law. the funny thing is many jurisdictions apply a clear and convincing burden of proof for fraud in the US.... not that it matters in any way, i just love internet lawyers. So you accuse me of being an internet lawyer when you just googled a jurisdictional split on the BoP for fraud? You were correct: it certainly does not matter. "Clear and convincing" is still a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Nice try discrediting me, maybe next time.
i didn't google. i am a california lawyer. you have made multiple misstatements of law while claiming some sort of superiority in american law. its amazing to me. i am not discrediting you, your statements discredit you as any sort of expert on american law.
here's a shovel, keep digging that hole.
|
On February 21 2015 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 06:11 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 06:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 21 2015 05:56 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 05:50 ref4 wrote:On February 21 2015 05:37 focusfight wrote:On February 21 2015 02:37 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:50 Orcasgt24 wrote:On February 21 2015 01:42 ddayzy wrote:On February 21 2015 01:20 Sejanus wrote:
It seems the only reason ddayzy registered here was to accuse people of being rapists
I'm not implying he is from Canada, but who knows... In any case I wish the matter could be discussed in a civilized way, without calling people rapists, scum, disgusting and so on. But it seems it's hardly possible, since the people who are most vocal against online harassment are the ones doing it most often. The irony and self pity in this post is staggering. One of the pillars of a civil society is innocent until proven guilty and yet you want to have a civil discussion if we should tear it down? If you want to dish it out don't go and play the victim when you get the same back. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in modern society. Before you are convicted of a crime you sit in jail. During your trial, you are in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit and are escorted by prison guards between the courthouse and the jail. That reads alot more like guilty until proven innocent to me. Another interesting note is that during a criminal trial if you do nothing to disprove the evidence laid against you, you are found guilty. The burden is on you to disprove the accusations against you. This statment is both scary and funny at the same time. You assume every person who gets arrested is guilty? I don't, which one of us do you think is the smarter person? No it is not, you are found guilty if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of conviction for the prosecution in a CRIMINAL TRIAL. There are no criminal charges filed here. If anything this would be a civil case for fraud in which the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." The CIVIL suit standard is lower than criminal because there is no potential loss of liberty (jail time) for most civil offenses. Basically, you are using the wrong evidentiary standard or "burden of proof" as it is called. Like it or not, Magicamy doesn't have a right to be innocent until proven guilty here as you have been so adamantly claiming. At best, someone accusing her of fraud would only have to show that based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that she committed the acts in question. I can promise you that circumstantial evidence presented on Reddit, Chakki's twitter, and statements of those she allegedly conned would all be admissible against her, even though it does not directly prove the scam. Stop trying to hide behind a weak legal argument that you very clearly do not understand. are we applying the American criminal law in this case, since it involves a Canadian man, a Korean woman, and a bunch of international people? Yes, I am applying general American criminal and civil law. There are certainly international implications to this, but for the sake of argument (and for the fact that I only know American law) I am only addressing the US law. the funny thing is many jurisdictions apply a clear and convincing burden of proof for fraud in the US.... not that it matters in any way, i just love internet lawyers. So you accuse me of being an internet lawyer when you just googled a jurisdictional split on the BoP for fraud? You were correct: it certainly does not matter. "Clear and convincing" is still a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Nice try discrediting me, maybe next time. i didn't google. i am a california lawyer. you have made multiple misstatements of law while claiming some sort of superiority in american law. its amazing to me. i am not discrediting you, your statements discredit you as any sort of expert on american law. here's a shovel, keep digging that hole.
Not worth my time.
If this guy is a California lawyer, then I'm Magicamy (keep in mind it's against the law in CA to falsely claim to be a lawyer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
