Ouch

[LilyV3 323]

so there is that mod that made this statement

 

"Of course, there is always that group of people that were possibly involved in foul activities but as a Criminal Justice major, I have to tell you that there is one important saying. It is better to have a hundred guilty people go free, than to have one innocent unfairly locked up "

 

wow, I dunno, maybe my mind is too weird, but taking this line by raw words, would that mean freeing 100 murderers would be worth it to get the one innocent free? knowing the rate of how many of them continue to do what they did, you put a lot people's Life at a high risk. That kinda triggers my doubts in such a justice System.

 

Thats not a threat to talk about the Mod who said that sentence, more about philosophing the nature of that one sentence and its meaning.

 

So whats your thought on this sentence?

Edited May 31, 2018 by LilyV3

[-Rachel- 129]

It's an analogy and not meant to be taken at face value, but it does underscore the general feeling behind the American justice system. People in the US are innocent until proven guilty, and the idea of an innocent person being punished for a crime they didn't commit is viewed as one of the highest possible injustices.

[Kewlin 692]

Germans, amirite?

 

Yes, this goes right along the concept of being innocent until proven guilty. As Rachel said, the concept is that it's worse to have a justice system that is unjust than to have no justice system at all.

 

So yeah, I basically totally agree with Lobo's sentiment.

[Excalibur! 207]

The problem is when it turns to be literally true.

[AsgerLund 1271]

15 hours ago, LilyV3 said:

so there is that mod that made this statement

 

"Of course, there is always that group of people that were possibly involved in foul activities but as a Criminal Justice major, I have to tell you that there is one important saying. It is better to have a hundred guilty people go free, than to have one innocent unfairly locked up "

 

wow, I dunno, maybe my mind is too weird, but taking this line by raw words, would that mean freeing 100 murderers would be worth it to get the one innocent free? knowing the rate of how many of them continue to do what they did, you put a lot people's Life at a high risk. That kinda triggers my doubts in such a justice System.

 

Thats not a threat to talk about the Mod who said that sentence, more about philosophing the nature of that one sentence and its meaning.

 

So whats your thought on this sentence?

I understood the statement slightly different than you did.

 

"It is better to have a hundred guilty people go free, than to have one innocent unfairly locked up".

I read that as having 100 guilty people in court, but not being able to get them convicted, because the level of evidence needed has to be beyond reasonable doubt - to protect innocent people from getting convicted. I agree 100% with that statement.

 

And it is a vastly different statement than "freeing 100 murderers would be worth it to get the one innocent free".

[LilyV3 323]

On 6/1/2018 at 8:20 AM, AsgerLund said:

I understood the statement slightly different than you did.

 

"It is better to have a hundred guilty people go free, than to have one innocent unfairly locked up".

I read that as having 100 guilty people in court, but not being able to get them convicted, because the level of evidence needed has to be beyond reasonable doubt - to protect innocent people from getting convicted. I agree 100% with that statement.

 

And it is a vastly different statement than "freeing 100 murderers would be worth it to get the one innocent free".

the statement says "hundred guilty people" so they are guilty and not probably guilty. there are just 101 people, and 100 confirmed guilty ones and one innocent. so yes you do let 100 free to also make sure the one innocent stays free.

[Skjaeg 15]

you are taking the statement at face value, which it is not meant to be. the one with the probable cause is the way that statement has always been supposed to work. 

[-Rachel- 129]

13 hours ago, Skjaeg said:

you are taking the statement at face value, which it is not meant to be. the one with the probable cause is the way that statement has always been supposed to work. 

This, it's a freakin' figure of speech, why is that so hard to understand?

[Nevv 49]

 

You can't erase the jail time of an innocent person, but you can definitely catch repeat offenders

Edited June 5, 2018 by Nevv

[Salvick 248]

6 hours ago, -Rachel- said:

This, it's a freakin' figure of speech, why is that so hard to understand?

I think that's because some people's idea of justice is very different from how the law system actually works in the modern civilization.

 

Not labeling anyone particularly here, but trying to put myself in such character, I think that if I find out that against the same situation someone would take a totally different decision of how I was taught about it, then probably I'd be subconsciously feeling that someone is attacking my rights.

 

If I'm such a person who thinks that justice has to be applied by my own, either because I was taught about the good and evil in extremist terms or because the system I live in is very complicated and its flaws allows evil people to do all kind of bad things, I'd be very encouraged of thinking that anyone suspected of a crime should be put in isolation until we can prove he is not a dangerous element in the society.

 

But I am someone who thinks that no single person should have any power over other people's life too, either the criminal who murders someone or the cop who arrests or kills a criminal are both on a situation that I can't assume any of them enjoy being there, so I think that's the reason why the ones enforcing the law in all its spheres, cops, judges, prosecutors, government agencies, everyone representing an institution is supposed to receive intense training and years of education in most of the cases, and that's why we as simple civilians shouldn't interfere in the process unless we are required to (such as testifying), because otherwise we would start a witch hunt against anyone who 'doesn't fit'  with our conception of a 'perfect society'.

 

People can fail, we make a lot of mistakes and a police officer, a prosecutor, a judge, even a president are humans and can do mistakes too, that's why the laws are made and every institution has their methods, because when the human mind might fail then it can always stick to the rules to make sure everything will work as intended, this goes for the ones in the side of law but also in the side of the bad guys when someone commits a crime is someone who suffered a deviation of his nature at some point and needs help, most of the times it is too late and there's no help but a time in jail or the rest of their life in it, of course that if someone is proven guilty we must put the dangerous elements of our society out of reach, but if we can understand the reasons and the context and then bring the evidence of such person intentions and actions, then we should analyze each case meticulously before we make a decision and stick to the rules we previously stated to take a properly measured action.

 

If we only judge without listening to what people have to prove and we don't give them the chance to provide evidence then, at least, we should be able to prove 100% that the person is guilty of what is being accused .

 

Or you rather want to have the whole APB player base banned for no reason as have been proved that Tiggs or whoever was behind FairFight manual bans have been doing?

 

 

 

Just to add something else, the case of murderers is a very sensible subject, because since murdering is considered the worst crime a human being could ever do, it is so terrifying of thinking that someone could kill us that we don't want to have to live with that fear, so in the need of finding the person responsible of such threat we can subconsciously fall into desperation and impulsively attempt to fix it by our own, which leads to more killings that might be not only unjustified, but wrong.

 

Think about this: you have an argue where both parties have their reasons but none of you can find an understanding point, the guy you are arguing with pulls a gun and aims at you, you react faster and shoot him to dead. Okay, self-defense, you made use of your right there but the family of this guy don't know this and wants to kill you. What's next?

 

Now, let's say you are the closest family member of such person who got killed in a confusing discussion but you are told that the one who was right in that arguing they had was your beloved one and that he was unfairly killed. You would claim for the right to kill that murderer or put him in jail, right?

 

What if no one was there to testify and they just take your word because someone told you that it was heard from outside that they argued about a football match and this person providing a vague testimony was indeed sympathizing with one of both parties so that's why he told you that your family member was right and the other one was wrong? Let's just put everybody in jail till we can prove their innocence then?

 

And who was there to tell who was right or wrong then? But disregarding who was wrong or right, is there a justification for any of them to shot to each other? To take the life away from another person? To condemn a family to such tragedy? Wouldn't you agree that it is better to create a method to prevent and correct such deviations of our human nature?

 

That's the key of our evolution as an advanced civilization, we can gather to share our knowledge and experiences, analyze the history and our ancestors and learn, improve and progress. Then there is a wide spectrum, millions of degrees to measure what is right and what is wrong, but the truth is relative and dynamic and never absolute, our common sense will always guide us to do the right, but when it could fail, then we have the rules, and these were made (allegedly) to serve fair justice to everyone, to serve justice to life itself, which is the primordial gift everyone have.

 

Also, the guys here were more clear and quick with their replies and clearly they know what are they talking about. While me? I doubt it! lol

[Rade 54]

On 5/31/2018 at 3:20 PM, LilyV3 said:

"Of course, there is always that group of people that were possibly involved in foul activities but as a Criminal Justice major, I have to tell you that there is one important saying. It is better to have a hundred guilty people go free, than to have one innocent unfairly locked up "

 

 

Taking the statement on face value, looking at the wider picture, no justice for victims, legal system in disrepute, risk to public etc. However, for that one innocent guy there is cause to ensure his/her right to freedom is protected, so it becomes a case of what is necessary in the interest of justice. To which note in the interests of justice it is better.....

 

Another way of looking at it, if you were that one guy would you sacrifice your freedom to ensure those 100 are locked up? I doubt it. What if that innocent person was your mum, dad, brother, sister.....what difference does it make if it is a total stranger?

[LilyV3 323]

2 hours ago, Rade said:

 

Taking the statement on face value, looking at the wider picture, no justice for victims, legal system in disrepute, risk to public etc. However, for that one innocent guy there is cause to ensure his/her right to freedom is protected, so it becomes a case of what is necessary in the interest of justice. To which note in the interests of justice it is better.....

 

Another way of looking at it, if you were that one guy would you sacrifice your freedom to ensure those 100 are locked up? I doubt it. What if that innocent person was your mum, dad, brother, sister.....what difference does it make if it is a total stranger?

could ask you the same about the murderers that get free and if those people they murdered were your relatives.

[Rade 54]

42 minutes ago, LilyV3 said:

could ask you the same about the murderers that get free and if those people they murdered were your relatives.

In what context, if I was the innocent person who had a relative killed by one of the guilty people, or if I was just a family member of someone killed by one of the guilty people?

 

 

 

[LilyV3 323]

3 minutes ago, Rade said:

In what context, if I was the innocent person who had a relative killed by one of the guilty people, or if I was just a family member of someone killed by one of the guilty people?

 

 

 

 

that shouldn't even matter.

[Rade 54]

You are right, it doesn't matter. Just wanted to make sure you understood the point I made.

 

The interest of justice should always prevail. No innocent person should be serving time.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Rade

[LilyV3 323]

52 minutes ago, Rade said:

You are right, it doesn't matter. Just wanted to make sure you understood the point I made.

 

The interest of justice should always prevail. No innocent person should be serving time.

 

of course not, but would you bring greather threat to the society and deny justice for 100 just to prevent injustive at one individual? The quotes raw speaking is not situational, and surely, cheaters are just chaters, and shoplifters are just shoplifters, but when we talk about real serious peopel we would let free. How much evil would we weight this single Life to be worth?

 

 

[Rade 54]

34 minutes ago, LilyV3 said:

 

of course not, but would you bring greather threat to the society and deny justice for 100 just to prevent injustive at one individual? The quotes raw speaking is not situational, and surely, cheaters are just chaters, and shoplifters are just shoplifters, but when we talk about real serious peopel we would let free. How much evil would we weight this single Life to be worth?

 

 

if you were that individual, you are telling me to lock you up with those 100 evil people and throw away the key.

[Salvick 248]

"Malleus Maleficarum" Let's start the witch-hunt already.

 

9 hours ago, Salvick said:

 

 

 

If we only judge without listening to what people have to prove and we don't give them the chance to provide evidence then, at least, we should be able to prove 100% that the person is guilty of what is being accused .

 

Or you rather want to have the whole APB player base banned for no reason as have been proved that Tiggs or whoever was behind FairFight manual bans have been doing?

 

Anyways,  comparing a misbehavior in a video game with murdering irl...meh.
 

[Excalibur! 207]

3 minutes ago, Salvick said:

"Malleus Maleficarum" Let's start the witch-hunt already.

 

Anyways,  comparing a misbehavior in a video game with murdering irl...meh.
 

Like i said before, for a murderer, an assassin, hitman or w/e, life could be just a business or have no meaning/importance at all (maybe you are way too young, but there is a huge business at cost of your health).

Games for you may not be important, but ive been gaming since i was 3. Cheaters been craping most my favourite games since i started playing online...

There is people making a living out of games, or just enjoying them... there is no place in gaming for a person who wants to ruin that.

 

Not because of your subjective perception of what is important will make anything less valuable for others.

 

[LilyV3 323]

15 hours ago, Rade said:

if you were that individual, you are telling me to lock you up with those 100 evil people and throw away the key.

Who said that the available status is being locked away WITH them and have the key thrown away. thats a very fishy result.

 

But in the end, how muich would it differ if those 100 people Life aroudn you and your family where they can still pose a threat to you (which is similar to be locked away with them) but also your family relatives and friends? The only difference is "hope", the hope that this stuff won't happen to your and your family, because gladly the world is rather big. But it doesn't negates the threat, it just lowers the chance for you as an individual. But not overall across the society.

 

 

14 hours ago, Salvick said:

"Malleus Maleficarum" Let's start the witch-hunt already.

 

Anyways,  comparing a misbehavior in a video game with murdering irl...meh.
 

 

well the quote was a generalisation so it has general meaning which would just not end at "misbehavior" it would even go as far as murder.

 

And yet what you call just "misbehavior" is a companies buisness beeing impacted negatively and can even ruin a game and the company + the living that the employees make out of their job at that company.

This kind of cheating differs a lot from a player just cheatind and ruining his own singleplayer experience. And APB has not just  a few cheater, remember the list of 200names they gavem, and how they said the real number is serveral times as big? https://apbreloaded.gamersfirst.com/2014/07/fighting-fair-in-apb-reloaded-with.html

cheaters have a big part in what ruined APB and affected the employees as well. Their impact went much further than just misbehavior. Their only advantage is that yet cheating and impacting companies buisness is no real crime and too hard to track and punish.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by LilyV3

[Queen of Love 439]

@LilyV3  they could add a new threat level, the "GGsc4m", instead of be banned, the cheaters are labeled with this HIDDEN nice feature, this will do some nice effect: first: they canT have opposition, only with other GGsc4m, so they will have a lot of fun. If they are in group or in team when catched ,they will be reduced of 90% of health a 90% stamina and 100% ammo primary and 90%secondary plus, a trolololo song will be added on their audio, possibly at 340db, volume setting will be restored to default, if they try to reach any object song will twice the volume. The threat GGsc4m will be automatically decreased to Goldyes after 3 weeks, so no more false positive permabanned. GGsc4m could be obtained also for scamming griefing or simply district vote poll report. (no more dethreaters  )

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Queen of Love
hidden ,is a segret, and you are a GGsc4m if dont upvote.

[Skjaeg 15]

6 hours ago, Queen of Love said:

they could add a new threat level, the "GGsc4m", instead of be banned, the cheaters are labeled with this HIDDEN nice feature, this will do some nice effect: first: they canT have opposition, only with other GGsc4m, so they will have a lot of fun. If they are in group or in team when catched ,they will be reduced of 90% of health a 90% stamina and 100% ammo primary and 90%secondary plus, a trolololo song will be added on their audio, possibly at 340db, volume setting will be restored to default, if they try to reach any object song will twice the volume. The threat GGsc4m will be automatically decreased to Goldyes after 3 weeks, so no more false positive permabanned. GGsc4m could be obtained also for scamming griefing or simply district vote poll report. (no more dethreaters  )

this would be a great meme to pull

[Salvick 248]

Well, China already prosecuting hack makers, and BE exists since years, G1 could take actions before it went so out of control, and I don't believe money was an issue. But Tiggs also had fallen in some player's pocket which made it easier for some people to get access to "whitelist" themselves and lead some others to cross the line.

 

Regarding the sentence quoted from Ritual, I just wanted to have a philosophical debate, I was delusional and brought some weird stuff I had in my mind looking to exchange our ideas, but I think we are more likely discussing about how bad the cheaters issue is and how many of us are against it, which is actually a tricky question; Who would ever agree with cheating and letting those who made us have such a bad time return to our beloved community?

 

I would never ever support cheating in online games, whoever knows me ingame should know this because of how I talk with them every time I have a chance to expose a cheater or at least state my standing about these.

 

I rather have 200 cheaters banned than 1 single person suffering the consequences of the harm they cause to our community, the game and its company.