On July 01 2020 10:39 joon wrote: tasteless and artosis, yall better not have done anything (except verbally abuse GuyInTheChat--im looking at you artosis)
More and more, I hope nobody they've come in contact with accuses them for any reason whatsoever. They can still have not done anything, but get chased out of the scene.
Unless I missed something, Redeye maintains that he never punched anyone? Just words delivered angrily into someone's face?
Tastosis? No way. They are beloved as few are in this scene, they’re not getting chased out unless they do some seriously wrong things.
Redeye has joked about ‘the incident’ on stream (I believe, I tried to find the vid but can’t remember where it was linked), and has conceded he’s ‘hard to work with’.
Which isn’t really a million miles from ‘I punched that guy’ and ‘I’m a bully on the job’.
My position is that Redeye’s behaviour is known by those around him, like his business partner, and an open secret amongst those who work around the industry.
Whether it’s pressure from those around him, or Redeye himself (regardless of anyone’s views on his alleged conduct, it’s pretty unarguable that he has a huge passion for the industry he helped elevate), I feel Redeye stepped away from the entire scene to prevent any further damage, notably to people and orgs that may have been exposed as enabling his alleged behaviour if he chose to fight the accusations and more came out.
This isn’t to say that false accusations aren’t also a pitfall to be avoided, I can’t recall from what game but I do recall the name Henry G as to the danger of internet mobs jumping on things.
It’s certainly a pitfall to be avoided, I think TLers have been reasonably judicious both with the Redeye accusations and the Rapid ones.
On June 30 2020 02:17 Big-t wrote: Noooo, what have the social justice warriors done now?? What is happening lately? Has none been taught on how to solve problems like an adult? Why are we bringing drama more and more to social media? This has to stop...
He has ON-STREAM, recorded altercations with staff members. Remember the whole "what a fucking idiot" thing everyone memed about? That attitude is indicative of someone who doesn't control his temper and it isn't hard to imagine his getting angry and punching someone, as he is being accused of.
??? You can't be serious, this is completely wrong
The 'what an idiot' incident was a random person who also had a stand in the convention hall IEM was at. He thought the SC2 tournaments volume was too loud and complained to Redeye who said he should take it up with production in the back. He was told not to walk through the set but he ignored this several times, and after they went live he walked through the set again in front of the camera, so Redeye called him an idiot. Random guy loses his shit and gets threatening, Redeye deescalates..
yes, that was a terrible example and i remember this one quite well. I would have done no differently than Redeye in this situation.
Anyway, there is enough situations that has come up which are highly credible and Redeye pretty much knows this is a lose, lose situation so he doesn't have much of an option except hopefully he can focus on being a better person and continue on with life. I wish him the best.
On July 01 2020 10:39 joon wrote: tasteless and artosis, yall better not have done anything (except verbally abuse GuyInTheChat--im looking at you artosis)
More and more, I hope nobody they've come in contact with accuses them for any reason whatsoever. They can still have not done anything, but get chased out of the scene.
Unless I missed something, Redeye maintains that he never punched anyone? Just words delivered angrily into someone's face?
It doesn't sound like you read what was wrote at all. I get it there are a bunch of pages expecially in the harassment/abuse thread let alone reddit.
If people are behaving poorly eventually these type of things get out. If I were to do something bad at work there are precautions no different than this industry. The fact, that this happened ages ago and is only coming out now is pretty sad. I get Banks feared he would never be able to find another job in this industry so he had to bite his lip.
No different than it is hard for people to talk about being raped because then people start to question their character and shit. It is a shitty ass situation and no one really wins.
I should add something here because this kind of bothers me. If... if other people have actively worked with Redeye before and seen other shit. I wonder did anyone ever try to address it? I mean this guy has been in the scene for eons (well over 20 years) yet no one chose to really speak up or at least address this directly with Redeye? Let alone other people behaving badly.
I find it extremely hard to believe and if other people did see other shit go down then all you really done is be enabler and let shit like this happen. That is not cool. -_- Shame on you.
There's just one thing I know for sure and that is that I know nothing. The whole thing here is being judged in the court of public opinion and the first thing that dies there is, well, the truth.
This "case" is only one I gave a some kind of research mostly as I always respected Redeye and what he brings to eSports, after reading both sides and seeing evidence posted by both sides... I am inclined to believe Redye, at least on physical abuse bit. Sad to see him leave the scene like this, man is a legend. :/
Thats a strange case. I wait with judgment for a little bit longer, but as it seems Redeye was an a** to work with. I really can´t tell what i would´ve done in the positions of some of his "partners". If it was so known in the industry, the wrong people got involved with him and also his Power over the complete industry as a Person that could end careers was in the wrong hands. On the other Side i liked his show Persona, would´ve been nice if just wasn´t that deep of an A****** on the other Side. :/
Edit: Ok only now found REdeys full Statment, makes it even harder to understand that situation. As usual, the biggest problem maybe is, that this is now a public thing, long before there is any absolut clearness of what happend.
On July 01 2020 10:39 joon wrote: tasteless and artosis, yall better not have done anything (except verbally abuse GuyInTheChat--im looking at you artosis)
More and more, I hope nobody they've come in contact with accuses them for any reason whatsoever. They can still have not done anything, but get chased out of the scene.
Unless I missed something, Redeye maintains that he never punched anyone? Just words delivered angrily into someone's face?
Tastosis? No way. They are beloved as few are in this scene, they’re not getting chased out unless they do some seriously wrong things.
And Redeye wasn't beloved? You're acting too naive for words.
Redeye has joked about ‘the incident’ on stream (I believe, I tried to find the vid but can’t remember where it was linked), and has conceded he’s ‘hard to work with’.
Which isn’t really a million miles from ‘I punched that guy’ and ‘I’m a bully on the job’.
My position is that Redeye’s behaviour is known by those around him, like his business partner, and an open secret amongst those who work around the industry.
Whether it’s pressure from those around him, or Redeye himself (regardless of anyone’s views on his alleged conduct, it’s pretty unarguable that he has a huge passion for the industry he helped elevate), I feel Redeye stepped away from the entire scene to prevent any further damage, notably to people and orgs that may have been exposed as enabling his alleged behaviour if he chose to fight the accusations and more came out.
This isn’t to say that false accusations aren’t also a pitfall to be avoided, I can’t recall from what game but I do recall the name Henry G as to the danger of internet mobs jumping on things.
It’s certainly a pitfall to be avoided, I think TLers have been reasonably judicious both with the Redeye accusations and the Rapid ones.
Let me know if you find something besides hearsay from a couple individuals. Any hardass boss is going to leave a bunch of disgruntled people in their wake. And you better check yourself if some verbal confrontation "isn’t really a million miles from ‘I punched that guy’". That isn't the standard, and shame on you. It's just discriminatory to slide from a personality type into suspicion. Discriminatory and damnable conduct.
On July 01 2020 10:39 joon wrote: tasteless and artosis, yall better not have done anything (except verbally abuse GuyInTheChat--im looking at you artosis)
More and more, I hope nobody they've come in contact with accuses them for any reason whatsoever. They can still have not done anything, but get chased out of the scene.
Unless I missed something, Redeye maintains that he never punched anyone? Just words delivered angrily into someone's face?
It doesn't sound like you read what was wrote at all. I get it there are a bunch of pages expecially in the harassment/abuse thread let alone reddit.
If people are behaving poorly eventually these type of things get out. If I were to do something bad at work there are precautions no different than this industry. The fact, that this happened ages ago and is only coming out now is pretty sad. I get Banks feared he would never be able to find another job in this industry so he had to bite his lip.
No different than it is hard for people to talk about being raped because then people start to question their character and shit. It is a shitty ass situation and no one really wins.
I should add something here because this kind of bothers me. If... if other people have actively worked with Redeye before and seen other shit. I wonder did anyone ever try to address it? I mean this guy has been in the scene for eons (well over 20 years) yet no one chose to really speak up or at least address this directly with Redeye? Let alone other people behaving badly.
I find it extremely hard to believe and if other people did see other shit go down then all you really done is be enabler and let shit like this happen. That is not cool. -_- Shame on you.
There a lot of accusations against several different people in esports, both players and casters. It's hard to follow which ones were about itmeJP, Rapid, oGs[unk], Redeye, some other player manager, etc.
And if it's really over the line, then put something on the record with police or lawsuit. In the US, employment law has your back. Filing a police report even if it ends in no charges filed puts credibility on things that happened years ago. I'm not even talking prima donna shit--Hollywood is a 45 minute drive away from me and they've got those kind of assholes everywhere. I'm talking about the real cross-the-line behavior.
you lost me at real cross-the-line behavior because what you coin acceptable may very well be unacceptable to others let alone a State or a country or to a religion.
there is a big reason why a lot of shit is never reported to the police or taken to court. 9 times out of 10 (that is probably an underestimate) it isn't worth it to the plaintiff for many reasons and one of the biggest ones is being money.
Also, it really isn't that hard to follow. I haven't been around the scene in ages and my job eats up a lot of time and to mention my family yet I still read through the shit.
People lay it out pretty clear early on in the thread too. To me it sounds like your line could be very different from a lot of peoples and the rule of law is also very different in other States.
Then we get into semantics because if you were to sue/press charges and let's say it happened in the States. Would you not have to press the charges in the State it happened and play by their rules. What happens if it happened in a Southern Republican State versus that of New York? What happens if you do not even live in that State and the other person is from another country. You think they would actually show up?
It's a lot of unwanted bullshit. Are you going to sue them for damages and how much until it makes it viable when they don't even have that kind of money to begin with?
There are a lot of reasons why you don't see charges. When you really open up all the bullshit you find out it isn't worth it to begin with.
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
I'm advocating nothing of the sort. I'm saying that some crimes, particularly abuse, are extremely hard to get anyone sentenced to. There is a very well documented international academic literature on how rape, abuse in the family, etc, rarely go to court, and that the court systems rarely sentence people. Yet, these things are alarmingly common and the idea that women lie, etc, is very rare.
I am not sure what "Western society stands for" both has to do with it, and what Western society really stands for.
If you don't like the system call out the system, not the man who was found innocent.
Western society in my environment is used basically for NATO more or less. The EU and their partners + Canada & US. Unless somthing changed these countries have similar moral grounds 1) If your punishment is done, you're supposed to be looked at as a clean person(aka your debt to the society has been payed) (doesn't work mostly in the land of freedom, e.g. voting rights) 2) If the court says you're innocent you're innocent and this should be respected. (more on the bottom, if you don't like the system, blame the system(or Canada)) 3) The judicial system is based on the fact that the majority can be redeemed and only the not redeemable are taken out of life(or those who did some horendous crimes) . (again my objection to this goes primarily to the US system)
Basically the 3 points mean(1-3), that person can redeem themselves by using the unbiased system the country prepared for. Therefore calling out people for being at the court while being found innocent is simply wrong. It's like using - hey, you've been investigated for a murder therefore you're a murderer.
At least that's how I see the system and the western society.
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
Ignore a court ruling is dangerous, in what context? If I read the material of a sentence and disagree with it that is dangerous? I have to (like good little sheep) think "Alright the court decided he is innocent, therefore I know too in my mind must think he is innocent".
That is total BS, if the alternative to respect a court judgement is to take power in your own hands and go harass the guy then of course you are right. However we as individuals have the right of independant thought, I am allowed to believe the court was totalt shit and made the wrong decision and I am allowed to say that openly because this is part of the free world with free speech. I am not allowed to harass a person (for any reason) and if a person I believe is innocent is found guilty I am not allowed to break them out of jail but I strongly doubt anyone here is arguing for anything like that.
Again, people are calling out RE for the innocent court ruling. If you don't like the ruling, calling out RE is stupid, call out the judge, call out the system to re-work the stuff. But calling out the person is just plainly wrong. RE was found innocent therefore he's innocent. Unless you believe he bribed the justice system then it's not his fault the justice system works that way and he shouldn't be called out for this. There are multiple things you can callout RE for but the court is the least sensible thing.
I don't know, it seems you missed what I was reacting to. I was against calling out RE for the court thing. I don't mind calling out the RULING itself, but the last time I checked Redeye wasn't the ruling, is he?
And yes, if a person found guilty is in jail, you're not supposed to break them free. That's a crime, isn't it? But you can use every power you have to open the case and make new hearing(?) at the court so the person can be set free. Which means - you. call. out. the. system.
Edit> also one of the major things we have in common is the belief that the judicial system is independent and isn't biased. Doesn't work that way all the time because people make mistakes. But then we return to the fact you should try to change the judicial system and call out the system. That was the #4 and that's why it says (1-3) in the upper reaction.
+TL, DR - don't call out RE for ruling, call out the system. It's not like you need the court ruling to call out RE.
On June 30 2020 02:17 Big-t wrote: Noooo, what have the social justice warriors done now?? What is happening lately? Has none been taught on how to solve problems like an adult? Why are we bringing drama more and more to social media? This has to stop...
He has ON-STREAM, recorded altercations with staff members. Remember the whole "what a fucking idiot" thing everyone memed about? That attitude is indicative of someone who doesn't control his temper and it isn't hard to imagine his getting angry and punching someone, as he is being accused of.
??? You can't be serious, this is completely wrong
The 'what an idiot' incident was a random person who also had a stand in the convention hall IEM was at. He thought the SC2 tournaments volume was too loud and complained to Redeye who said he should take it up with production in the back. He was told not to walk through the set but he ignored this several times, and after they went live he walked through the set again in front of the camera, so Redeye called him an idiot. Random guy loses his shit and gets threatening, Redeye deescalates..
yes, that was a terrible example and i remember this one quite well. I would have done no differently than Redeye in this situation.
Anyway, there is enough situations that has come up which are highly credible and Redeye pretty much knows this is a lose, lose situation so he doesn't have much of an option except hopefully he can focus on being a better person and continue on with life. I wish him the best.
On July 01 2020 10:39 joon wrote: tasteless and artosis, yall better not have done anything (except verbally abuse GuyInTheChat--im looking at you artosis)
More and more, I hope nobody they've come in contact with accuses them for any reason whatsoever. They can still have not done anything, but get chased out of the scene.
Unless I missed something, Redeye maintains that he never punched anyone? Just words delivered angrily into someone's face?
It doesn't sound like you read what was wrote at all. I get it there are a bunch of pages expecially in the harassment/abuse thread let alone reddit.
If people are behaving poorly eventually these type of things get out. If I were to do something bad at work there are precautions no different than this industry. The fact, that this happened ages ago and is only coming out now is pretty sad. I get Banks feared he would never be able to find another job in this industry so he had to bite his lip.
No different than it is hard for people to talk about being raped because then people start to question their character and shit. It is a shitty ass situation and no one really wins.
I should add something here because this kind of bothers me. If... if other people have actively worked with Redeye before and seen other shit. I wonder did anyone ever try to address it? I mean this guy has been in the scene for eons (well over 20 years) yet no one chose to really speak up or at least address this directly with Redeye? Let alone other people behaving badly.
I find it extremely hard to believe and if other people did see other shit go down then all you really done is be enabler and let shit like this happen. That is not cool. -_- Shame on you.
Funny, that I remember that incident and I thought Redeye was being rather rude and acting unprofessionally. If it was me I would had acted professionally as a reporter and ignored that someone walked in front of the camera. If you would call someone who is alone an idiot, publically, whilst surrounded by friends and staff, that's a negative reflection on you.
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
I'm advocating nothing of the sort. I'm saying that some crimes, particularly abuse, are extremely hard to get anyone sentenced to. There is a very well documented international academic literature on how rape, abuse in the family, etc, rarely go to court, and that the court systems rarely sentence people. Yet, these things are alarmingly common and the idea that women lie, etc, is very rare.
I am not sure what "Western society stands for" both has to do with it, and what Western society really stands for.
If you don't like the system call out the system, not the man who was found innocent.
Western society in my environment is used basically for NATO more or less. The EU and their partners + Canada & US. Unless somthing changed these countries have similar moral grounds 1) If your punishment is done, you're supposed to be looked at as a clean person(aka your debt to the society has been payed) (doesn't work mostly in the land of freedom, e.g. voting rights) 2) If the court says you're innocent you're innocent and this should be respected. (more on the bottom, if you don't like the system, blame the system(or Canada)) 3) The judicial system is based on the fact that the majority can be redeemed and only the not redeemable are taken out of life(or those who did some horendous crimes) . (again my objection to this goes primarily to the US system)
Basically the 3 points mean(1-3), that person can redeem themselves by using the unbiased system the country prepared for. Therefore calling out people for being at the court while being found innocent is simply wrong. It's like using - hey, you've been investigated for a murder therefore you're a murderer.
At least that's how I see the system and the western society.
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
Ignore a court ruling is dangerous, in what context? If I read the material of a sentence and disagree with it that is dangerous? I have to (like good little sheep) think "Alright the court decided he is innocent, therefore I know too in my mind must think he is innocent".
That is total BS, if the alternative to respect a court judgement is to take power in your own hands and go harass the guy then of course you are right. However we as individuals have the right of independant thought, I am allowed to believe the court was totalt shit and made the wrong decision and I am allowed to say that openly because this is part of the free world with free speech. I am not allowed to harass a person (for any reason) and if a person I believe is innocent is found guilty I am not allowed to break them out of jail but I strongly doubt anyone here is arguing for anything like that.
Again, people are calling out RE for the innocent court ruling. If you don't like the ruling, calling out RE is stupid, call out the judge, call out the system to re-work the stuff. But calling out the person is just plainly wrong. RE was found innocent therefore he's innocent. Unless you believe he bribed the justice system then it's not his fault the justice system works that way and he shouldn't be called out for this. There are multiple things you can callout RE for but the court is the least sensible thing.
I don't know, it seems you missed what I was reacting to. I was against calling out RE for the court thing. I don't mind calling out the RULING itself, but the last time I checked Redeye wasn't the ruling, is he?
And yes, if a person found guilty is in jail, you're not supposed to break them free. That's a crime, isn't it? But you can use every power you have to open the case and make new hearing(?) at the court so the person can be set free. Which means - you. call. out. the. system.
Edit> also one of the major things we have in common is the belief that the judicial system is independent and isn't biased. Doesn't work that way all the time because people make mistakes. But then we return to the fact you should try to change the judicial system and call out the system. That was the #4 and that's why it says (1-3) in the upper reaction.
+TL, DR - don't call out RE for ruling, call out the system. It's not like you need the court ruling to call out RE.
Just to be super clear, courts do not find people "innocent". The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. If you have good lawyers (which most people do not and is a huge injustice) this is an incredibly high bar to clear. Courts find defendants "not guilty" if a jury believes that there is a 0-97% the chance the person committed the crime they are supposed to vote "not guilty". It's not uncommon for someones actions to fail to meet the incredibly high bar of criminal liability and also easily meet the lower bar of civil liability.
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
I'm advocating nothing of the sort. I'm saying that some crimes, particularly abuse, are extremely hard to get anyone sentenced to. There is a very well documented international academic literature on how rape, abuse in the family, etc, rarely go to court, and that the court systems rarely sentence people. Yet, these things are alarmingly common and the idea that women lie, etc, is very rare.
I am not sure what "Western society stands for" both has to do with it, and what Western society really stands for.
If you don't like the system call out the system, not the man who was found innocent.
Western society in my environment is used basically for NATO more or less. The EU and their partners + Canada & US. Unless somthing changed these countries have similar moral grounds 1) If your punishment is done, you're supposed to be looked at as a clean person(aka your debt to the society has been payed) (doesn't work mostly in the land of freedom, e.g. voting rights) 2) If the court says you're innocent you're innocent and this should be respected. (more on the bottom, if you don't like the system, blame the system(or Canada)) 3) The judicial system is based on the fact that the majority can be redeemed and only the not redeemable are taken out of life(or those who did some horendous crimes) . (again my objection to this goes primarily to the US system)
Basically the 3 points mean(1-3), that person can redeem themselves by using the unbiased system the country prepared for. Therefore calling out people for being at the court while being found innocent is simply wrong. It's like using - hey, you've been investigated for a murder therefore you're a murderer.
At least that's how I see the system and the western society.
Simple version can be found bellow.
On July 01 2020 18:14 Shuffleblade wrote:
On July 01 2020 16:39 deacon.frost wrote:
On July 01 2020 15:21 Heartland wrote:
On July 01 2020 14:59 fededevi wrote:
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
Ignore a court ruling is dangerous, in what context? If I read the material of a sentence and disagree with it that is dangerous? I have to (like good little sheep) think "Alright the court decided he is innocent, therefore I know too in my mind must think he is innocent".
That is total BS, if the alternative to respect a court judgement is to take power in your own hands and go harass the guy then of course you are right. However we as individuals have the right of independant thought, I am allowed to believe the court was totalt shit and made the wrong decision and I am allowed to say that openly because this is part of the free world with free speech. I am not allowed to harass a person (for any reason) and if a person I believe is innocent is found guilty I am not allowed to break them out of jail but I strongly doubt anyone here is arguing for anything like that.
Again, people are calling out RE for the innocent court ruling. If you don't like the ruling, calling out RE is stupid, call out the judge, call out the system to re-work the stuff. But calling out the person is just plainly wrong. RE was found innocent therefore he's innocent. Unless you believe he bribed the justice system then it's not his fault the justice system works that way and he shouldn't be called out for this. There are multiple things you can callout RE for but the court is the least sensible thing.
I don't know, it seems you missed what I was reacting to. I was against calling out RE for the court thing. I don't mind calling out the RULING itself, but the last time I checked Redeye wasn't the ruling, is he?
And yes, if a person found guilty is in jail, you're not supposed to break them free. That's a crime, isn't it? But you can use every power you have to open the case and make new hearing(?) at the court so the person can be set free. Which means - you. call. out. the. system.
Edit> also one of the major things we have in common is the belief that the judicial system is independent and isn't biased. Doesn't work that way all the time because people make mistakes. But then we return to the fact you should try to change the judicial system and call out the system. That was the #4 and that's why it says (1-3) in the upper reaction.
+TL, DR - don't call out RE for ruling, call out the system. It's not like you need the court ruling to call out RE.
Just to be super clear, courts do not find people "innocent". The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. If you have good lawyers (which most people do not and is a huge injustice) this is an incredibly high bar to clear. Courts find defendants "not guilty" if a jury believes that there is a 0-97% the chance the person committed the crime they are supposed to vote "not guilty". It's not uncommon for someones actions to fail to meet the incredibly high bar of criminal liability and also easily meet the lower bar of civil liability.
Do you have a source for that 0 to97% number range? As far as I know criminal law doesn't deal with probability #s.
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
I'm advocating nothing of the sort. I'm saying that some crimes, particularly abuse, are extremely hard to get anyone sentenced to. There is a very well documented international academic literature on how rape, abuse in the family, etc, rarely go to court, and that the court systems rarely sentence people. Yet, these things are alarmingly common and the idea that women lie, etc, is very rare.
I am not sure what "Western society stands for" both has to do with it, and what Western society really stands for.
If you don't like the system call out the system, not the man who was found innocent.
Western society in my environment is used basically for NATO more or less. The EU and their partners + Canada & US. Unless somthing changed these countries have similar moral grounds 1) If your punishment is done, you're supposed to be looked at as a clean person(aka your debt to the society has been payed) (doesn't work mostly in the land of freedom, e.g. voting rights) 2) If the court says you're innocent you're innocent and this should be respected. (more on the bottom, if you don't like the system, blame the system(or Canada)) 3) The judicial system is based on the fact that the majority can be redeemed and only the not redeemable are taken out of life(or those who did some horendous crimes) . (again my objection to this goes primarily to the US system)
Basically the 3 points mean(1-3), that person can redeem themselves by using the unbiased system the country prepared for. Therefore calling out people for being at the court while being found innocent is simply wrong. It's like using - hey, you've been investigated for a murder therefore you're a murderer.
At least that's how I see the system and the western society.
Simple version can be found bellow.
On July 01 2020 18:14 Shuffleblade wrote:
On July 01 2020 16:39 deacon.frost wrote:
On July 01 2020 15:21 Heartland wrote:
On July 01 2020 14:59 fededevi wrote:
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
Ignore a court ruling is dangerous, in what context? If I read the material of a sentence and disagree with it that is dangerous? I have to (like good little sheep) think "Alright the court decided he is innocent, therefore I know too in my mind must think he is innocent".
That is total BS, if the alternative to respect a court judgement is to take power in your own hands and go harass the guy then of course you are right. However we as individuals have the right of independant thought, I am allowed to believe the court was totalt shit and made the wrong decision and I am allowed to say that openly because this is part of the free world with free speech. I am not allowed to harass a person (for any reason) and if a person I believe is innocent is found guilty I am not allowed to break them out of jail but I strongly doubt anyone here is arguing for anything like that.
Again, people are calling out RE for the innocent court ruling. If you don't like the ruling, calling out RE is stupid, call out the judge, call out the system to re-work the stuff. But calling out the person is just plainly wrong. RE was found innocent therefore he's innocent. Unless you believe he bribed the justice system then it's not his fault the justice system works that way and he shouldn't be called out for this. There are multiple things you can callout RE for but the court is the least sensible thing.
I don't know, it seems you missed what I was reacting to. I was against calling out RE for the court thing. I don't mind calling out the RULING itself, but the last time I checked Redeye wasn't the ruling, is he?
And yes, if a person found guilty is in jail, you're not supposed to break them free. That's a crime, isn't it? But you can use every power you have to open the case and make new hearing(?) at the court so the person can be set free. Which means - you. call. out. the. system.
Edit> also one of the major things we have in common is the belief that the judicial system is independent and isn't biased. Doesn't work that way all the time because people make mistakes. But then we return to the fact you should try to change the judicial system and call out the system. That was the #4 and that's why it says (1-3) in the upper reaction.
+TL, DR - don't call out RE for ruling, call out the system. It's not like you need the court ruling to call out RE.
Just to be super clear, courts do not find people "innocent". The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. If you have good lawyers (which most people do not and is a huge injustice) this is an incredibly high bar to clear. Courts find defendants "not guilty" if a jury believes that there is a 0-97% the chance the person committed the crime they are supposed to vote "not guilty". It's not uncommon for someones actions to fail to meet the incredibly high bar of criminal liability and also easily meet the lower bar of civil liability.
Do you have a source for that 0 to97% number range? As far as I know criminal law doesn't deal with probability #s.
its the 'guideline' for jurors to follow, its not the actual law. if they have even 3% doubt they are told by selection committee to vote not guilty
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
I'm advocating nothing of the sort. I'm saying that some crimes, particularly abuse, are extremely hard to get anyone sentenced to. There is a very well documented international academic literature on how rape, abuse in the family, etc, rarely go to court, and that the court systems rarely sentence people. Yet, these things are alarmingly common and the idea that women lie, etc, is very rare.
I am not sure what "Western society stands for" both has to do with it, and what Western society really stands for.
If you don't like the system call out the system, not the man who was found innocent.
Western society in my environment is used basically for NATO more or less. The EU and their partners + Canada & US. Unless somthing changed these countries have similar moral grounds 1) If your punishment is done, you're supposed to be looked at as a clean person(aka your debt to the society has been payed) (doesn't work mostly in the land of freedom, e.g. voting rights) 2) If the court says you're innocent you're innocent and this should be respected. (more on the bottom, if you don't like the system, blame the system(or Canada)) 3) The judicial system is based on the fact that the majority can be redeemed and only the not redeemable are taken out of life(or those who did some horendous crimes) . (again my objection to this goes primarily to the US system)
Basically the 3 points mean(1-3), that person can redeem themselves by using the unbiased system the country prepared for. Therefore calling out people for being at the court while being found innocent is simply wrong. It's like using - hey, you've been investigated for a murder therefore you're a murderer.
At least that's how I see the system and the western society.
Simple version can be found bellow.
On July 01 2020 18:14 Shuffleblade wrote:
On July 01 2020 16:39 deacon.frost wrote:
On July 01 2020 15:21 Heartland wrote:
On July 01 2020 14:59 fededevi wrote:
On June 30 2020 22:41 deacon.frost wrote: Uh, what was the verdict of the court? Just being curious.
We went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent" in a week, this is what happens when you abandon reason and follow the internet mob justice.
If you look back in the thread, you can find a number of sources for how abuse is far more prevalent than court sentencings suggest and the huge difficulties that are posed by saying that we need a court to sentence someone in order to do that. So it's rather the opposite than the lack of reason, it is the use of scientific investigations.
You realise you're advocating for ignoring the court if you don't like it? You can call RE for everything of the rest, but calling person out for being at the court while being found innocent is against everything the western society claims to stand on. This is pretty hypocritical, because it can be used both way - oh, he was found guilty for beating his wife, but I am sure the judgement in abuses is flawed therefore he didn't beat her at all. Ignoring the court ruling you don't like is dangerous.
We're supposed to respect judgements even if we don't like them in the same way we're supposed to treat released convicts as if they've never been sentenced(with the exception of guns and security stuff). And trust me I didn't like more than a few court rulings already
Ignore a court ruling is dangerous, in what context? If I read the material of a sentence and disagree with it that is dangerous? I have to (like good little sheep) think "Alright the court decided he is innocent, therefore I know too in my mind must think he is innocent".
That is total BS, if the alternative to respect a court judgement is to take power in your own hands and go harass the guy then of course you are right. However we as individuals have the right of independant thought, I am allowed to believe the court was totalt shit and made the wrong decision and I am allowed to say that openly because this is part of the free world with free speech. I am not allowed to harass a person (for any reason) and if a person I believe is innocent is found guilty I am not allowed to break them out of jail but I strongly doubt anyone here is arguing for anything like that.
Again, people are calling out RE for the innocent court ruling. If you don't like the ruling, calling out RE is stupid, call out the judge, call out the system to re-work the stuff. But calling out the person is just plainly wrong. RE was found innocent therefore he's innocent. Unless you believe he bribed the justice system then it's not his fault the justice system works that way and he shouldn't be called out for this. There are multiple things you can callout RE for but the court is the least sensible thing.
I don't know, it seems you missed what I was reacting to. I was against calling out RE for the court thing. I don't mind calling out the RULING itself, but the last time I checked Redeye wasn't the ruling, is he?
And yes, if a person found guilty is in jail, you're not supposed to break them free. That's a crime, isn't it? But you can use every power you have to open the case and make new hearing(?) at the court so the person can be set free. Which means - you. call. out. the. system.
Edit> also one of the major things we have in common is the belief that the judicial system is independent and isn't biased. Doesn't work that way all the time because people make mistakes. But then we return to the fact you should try to change the judicial system and call out the system. That was the #4 and that's why it says (1-3) in the upper reaction.
+TL, DR - don't call out RE for ruling, call out the system. It's not like you need the court ruling to call out RE.
Just to be super clear, courts do not find people "innocent". The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. If you have good lawyers (which most people do not and is a huge injustice) this is an incredibly high bar to clear. Courts find defendants "not guilty" if a jury believes that there is a 0-97% the chance the person committed the crime they are supposed to vote "not guilty". It's not uncommon for someones actions to fail to meet the incredibly high bar of criminal liability and also easily meet the lower bar of civil liability.
Do you have a source for that 0 to97% number range? As far as I know criminal law doesn't deal with probability #s.
its the 'guideline' for jurors to follow, its not the actual law. if they have even 3% doubt they are told by selection committee to vote not guilty
can i see this "guideline" from any source perhaps ?
On June 30 2020 02:17 Big-t wrote: Noooo, what have the social justice warriors done now?? What is happening lately? Has none been taught on how to solve problems like an adult? Why are we bringing drama more and more to social media? This has to stop...
This isn't a "social justice warrior" thing. He punched someone and abused his power. He has ON-STREAM, recorded altercations with staff members. Remember the whole "what a fucking idiot" thing everyone memed about? That attitude is indicative of someone who doesn't control his temper and it isn't hard to imagine his getting angry and punching someone, as he is being accused of.
He handled that great. Literally everyone said he handled that great. @_@
On June 30 2020 02:17 Big-t wrote: Noooo, what have the social justice warriors done now?? What is happening lately? Has none been taught on how to solve problems like an adult? Why are we bringing drama more and more to social media? This has to stop...
He has ON-STREAM, recorded altercations with staff members. Remember the whole "what a fucking idiot" thing everyone memed about? That attitude is indicative of someone who doesn't control his temper and it isn't hard to imagine his getting angry and punching someone, as he is being accused of.
??? You can't be serious, this is completely wrong
The 'what an idiot' incident was a random person who also had a stand in the convention hall IEM was at. He thought the SC2 tournaments volume was too loud and complained to Redeye who said he should take it up with production in the back. He was told not to walk through the set but he ignored this several times, and after they went live he walked through the set again in front of the camera, so Redeye called him an idiot. Random guy loses his shit and gets threatening, Redeye deescalates..
Thank you. Fake fans or maybe people who are now full blown crazy SJW's trying to change reality. Did we get a statement from SC2 people on RedEye? Apollo?
EPT
