Name Control

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

[Muluck]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

 

We are obligated as member's to make sure what we post follows the rules. No If's And's or But's about it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

 

We are obligated as member's to make sure what we post follows the rules. No If's And's or But's about it.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is "intentional spamming" being a more harshly punished offense than "spamming" when the claim of "intent" in "intentional spamming" is next to always without evidence.

[Muluck]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

 

We are obligated as member's to make sure what we post follows the rules. No If's And's or But's about it.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is "intentional spamming" being a more harshly punished offense than "spamming" when the claim of "intent" in "intentional spamming" is next to always without evidence.

 

Whethter it is named Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is still a Warnable and Banable offense if you continue to do it after being warned.

[staticrevenger]

I find it hilarious that mods will instantly ban new members with the same name as a mod for having "malicious intent", while they will not instantly ban new members who sign up with names such as this: http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/user-209567.html

[Amethyst Phoenix]

They changed their names as part of a Halloween event, for the sole purpose of creating an enjoyable event for the members.

 

 

2 Asshats took advantage of this show of kindness and stole an innocent person's name.

 

 

Ignoring this and saying "A mod changed his name, then got pissed when someone else the available name." is akin to making a battle plan that ignores the terrain.

[Muluck]

They changed their names as part of a Halloween event' date=' for the sole purpose of creating an enjoyable event for the members.

 

 

2 Asshats took advantage of this show of kindness and stole an innocent person's name.

 

 

Ignoring this and saying "A mod changed his name, then got pissed when someone else the available name." is akin to making a battle plan that ignores the terrain.

[/quote']

 

I actually believe the Halloween Event Name change was Justified. I have no problem with that what so ever. I am glad the Moderators did something for the forum.

 

I am talking beyond the Halloween Event. For example Icyblue's current new name.

 

I find it hilarious that mods will instantly ban new members with the same name as a mod for having "malicious intent"' date=' while they will not instantly ban new members who sign up with names such as this: http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/user-209567.html

[/quote']

 

I concur, it is partially because of personal reasons incorporated into the Final Rulings.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

 

We are obligated as member's to make sure what we post follows the rules. No If's And's or But's about it.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is "intentional spamming" being a more harshly punished offense than "spamming" when the claim of "intent" in "intentional spamming" is next to always without evidence.

 

Whethter it is named Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is still a Warnable and Banable offense if you continue to do it after being warned.

 

It is less so when it's not labeled "intentional spamming", which is worse of an offense than spamming absent-mindedly. Obviously off-topic posts aren't the thing to do, but the moderators can't tell people they were only posting an off-topic remark for the sake of posting an off-topic remark and not for the content, which just so happened to be warnable for spamming for being off-topic.

[Muluck]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

 

We are obligated as member's to make sure what we post follows the rules. No If's And's or But's about it.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is "intentional spamming" being a more harshly punished offense than "spamming" when the claim of "intent" in "intentional spamming" is next to always without evidence.

 

Whethter it is named Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is still a Warnable and Banable offense if you continue to do it after being warned.

 

It is less so when it's not labeled "intentional spamming", which is worse of an offense than spamming absent-mindedly. Obviously off-topic posts aren't the thing to do, but the moderators can't tell people they were only posting an off-topic remark for the sake of posting an off-topic remark and not for the content, which just so happened to be warnable for spamming for being off-topic.

 

Now your just argueing for the sake of argueing, which is incredibly annoying. You know why your arguement is invalid as I have told you, yet you continue. I will not continue to discuss this and it is over, you can take your immaturity and talk to yourself.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Hey Polaris, go funk yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[Muluck]

Hey Polaris' date=' go f*** yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[/quote']

 

You can't prove that having the name Icyblue or Falling Pizza or Umbra is malicious intent. Which is what this thread is about.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Hey Polaris' date=' go f*** yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[/quote']

 

You can't prove that having the name Icyblue or Falling Pizza or Umbra is malicious intent. Which is what this thread is about.

 

And you can't prove malicious intent is behind my statement.

 

It's to illustrate a point: you can easily infer that my message to polaris would have malicious intent (for the purposes of this argument, we're assuming the statement was said outside this thread).

 

Just as I inferred that the whole Prince Hunter thing was set up by OMGAKITTY. And what do you know, I was right.

 

 

Point being, your logic is faulty, because it assumes that unless something is absolutely true and there is no possible way to disprove it, it's false.

 

Which is, quite simply, unrealistic. To assume everything is either completely wrong or proven right by every single viewpoint and facet is simply ridiculous. You're doing nothing simply because you're not 100% sure of the right course of action.

 

When faced with a decision the best thing to do is the right thing, the 2nd best thing to do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing to do is nothing.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

There's a difference between spamming and intentional spamming. One can post what can be classified as spam without posting for the sake of posting spam to inconvenience moderators in making them do more work.

 

We are obligated as member's to make sure what we post follows the rules. No If's And's or But's about it.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is "intentional spamming" being a more harshly punished offense than "spamming" when the claim of "intent" in "intentional spamming" is next to always without evidence.

 

Whethter it is named Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is still a Warnable and Banable offense if you continue to do it after being warned.

 

It is less so when it's not labeled "intentional spamming", which is worse of an offense than spamming absent-mindedly. Obviously off-topic posts aren't the thing to do, but the moderators can't tell people they were only posting an off-topic remark for the sake of posting an off-topic remark and not for the content, which just so happened to be warnable for spamming for being off-topic.

 

Now your just argueing for the sake of argueing, which is incredibly annoying. You know why your arguement is invalid as I have told you, yet you continue. I will not continue to discuss this and it is over, you can take your immaturity and talk to yourself.

 

No you haven't. >_> Obviously I know any kind of "spamming"'s against the rules, which is all you've really been saying. What you're not seeing is that "intentional spamming" gets higher punishments than spamming.

 

 

Hey Polaris' date=' go f*** yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[/quote']

 

It didn't. I have no way of proving that you were saying "Hey Polaris, go funk yourself" with malicious intent, and I don't even hold it as an opinion that you were, but rather you were just using it as part of an argument.

 

It has the potential to have been posted out of malicious intent, but if it was I have no way of proving so as long as there're other potential scenarios for your intentions.

[Muluck]

Hey Polaris' date=' go f*** yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[/quote']

 

You can't prove that having the name Icyblue or Falling Pizza or Umbra is malicious intent. Which is what this thread is about.

 

And you can't prove malicious intent is behind my statement.

 

It's to illustrate a point: you can easily infer that my message to polaris would have malicious intent (for the purposes of this argument, we're assuming the statement was said outside this thread).

 

Just as I inferred that the whole Prince Hunter thing was set up by OMGAKITTY. And what do you know, I was right.

 

 

Point being, your logic is faulty, because it assumes that unless something is absolutely true and there is no possible way to disprove it, it's false.

 

Which is, quite simply, unrealistic. To assume everything is either completely wrong or proven right by every single viewpoint and facet is simply ridiculous. You're doing nothing simply because you're not 100% sure of the right course of action.

 

When faced with a decision the best thing to do is the right thing, the 2nd best thing to do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing to do is nothing.

 

My logic?

If I had the power, I would not have you warned you for Intentional Spamming on that post, I would have warned you for Swearing.

 

Your intentions were to prove a point, but by doing that you decided to Swear, which in and of itself is against the rules.

You see what I am getting at? The contents of the post and direction of the conversation all are things that can prove Intention, as well as passed offences by the user.

 

[spoiler=Icyblue]

Note to Icyblue, if he remembers our conversation he will know what I am talking about.

 

 

 

I will reitterate what I said earlier, Whether it says Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is spamming either way. It is still breaking the rules, right now you guys are argueing just to argue. Just to get one word changed.

How about you make a petition to change Intetional Spamming to Obvious Spamming instead of argueing to me about it in a thread whose topic is on a different subject whose creator has not power over the Staff Team.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Obvious Spamming is not as open... Me thinks.

[Muluck]

Obvious Spamming is not as open... Me thinks.

 

"Lack of On-Topic Structural Thought Spamming"? :lol:

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Hey Polaris' date=' go f*** yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[/quote']

 

You can't prove that having the name Icyblue or Falling Pizza or Umbra is malicious intent. Which is what this thread is about.

 

And you can't prove malicious intent is behind my statement.

 

It's to illustrate a point: you can easily infer that my message to polaris would have malicious intent (for the purposes of this argument, we're assuming the statement was said outside this thread).

 

Just as I inferred that the whole Prince Hunter thing was set up by OMGAKITTY. And what do you know, I was right.

 

 

Point being, your logic is faulty, because it assumes that unless something is absolutely true and there is no possible way to disprove it, it's false.

 

Which is, quite simply, unrealistic. To assume everything is either completely wrong or proven right by every single viewpoint and facet is simply ridiculous. You're doing nothing simply because you're not 100% sure of the right course of action.

 

When faced with a decision the best thing to do is the right thing, the 2nd best thing to do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing to do is nothing.

 

My logic?

If I had the power, I would not have you warned you for Intentional Spamming on that post, I would have warned you for Swearing.

 

Your intentions were to prove a point, but by doing that you decided to Swear, which in and of itself is against the rules.

You see what I am getting at? The contents of the post and direction of the conversation all are things that can prove Intention, as well as passed offences by the user.

 

[spoiler=Icyblue]

Note to Icyblue, if he remembers our conversation he will know what I am talking about.

 

 

 

I will reitterate what I said earlier, Whether it says Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is spamming either way. It is still breaking the rules, right now you guys are argueing just to argue. Just to get one word changed.

How about you make a petition to change Intetional Spamming to Obvious Spamming instead of argueing to me about it in a thread whose topic is on a different subject whose creator has not power over the Staff Team.

 

It's a change in severity of punishment by adding a baseless word, which is usually just thrown on for disliked members. That's my problem with it, okie?

 

Anyway, the spamming thing was just a separate issue, our main one was intent and whether one can prove it, for which I've already posted my views.

[Muluck]

Hey Polaris' date=' go f*** yourself.

 

Now then, you cannot prove the above sentence holds malicious intents, because you cannot read my mind.

[/quote']

 

You can't prove that having the name Icyblue or Falling Pizza or Umbra is malicious intent. Which is what this thread is about.

 

And you can't prove malicious intent is behind my statement.

 

It's to illustrate a point: you can easily infer that my message to polaris would have malicious intent (for the purposes of this argument, we're assuming the statement was said outside this thread).

 

Just as I inferred that the whole Prince Hunter thing was set up by OMGAKITTY. And what do you know, I was right.

 

 

Point being, your logic is faulty, because it assumes that unless something is absolutely true and there is no possible way to disprove it, it's false.

 

Which is, quite simply, unrealistic. To assume everything is either completely wrong or proven right by every single viewpoint and facet is simply ridiculous. You're doing nothing simply because you're not 100% sure of the right course of action.

 

When faced with a decision the best thing to do is the right thing, the 2nd best thing to do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing to do is nothing.

 

My logic?

If I had the power, I would not have you warned you for Intentional Spamming on that post, I would have warned you for Swearing.

 

Your intentions were to prove a point, but by doing that you decided to Swear, which in and of itself is against the rules.

You see what I am getting at? The contents of the post and direction of the conversation all are things that can prove Intention, as well as passed offences by the user.

 

[spoiler=Icyblue]

Note to Icyblue, if he remembers our conversation he will know what I am talking about.

 

 

 

I will reitterate what I said earlier, Whether it says Intentional Spamming or Obvious Spamming, it is spamming either way. It is still breaking the rules, right now you guys are argueing just to argue. Just to get one word changed.

How about you make a petition to change Intetional Spamming to Obvious Spamming instead of argueing to me about it in a thread whose topic is on a different subject whose creator has not power over the Staff Team.

 

It's a change in severity of punishment by adding a baseless word, which is usually just thrown on for disliked members. That's my problem with it, okie?

 

Anyway, the spamming thing was just a separate issue, our main one was intent and whether one can prove it, for which I've already posted my views.

 

Yeah, in the wrong thread. Take it to a thread that was made for that will you?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Right, but the issue of name control's also tied in with intent know what I'm saying? Whether or not we're to assume that someone who takes someone who'd like to revert's old username should be punished. There's potential for the person who took that username to have not done it with malicious intent, so it doesn't make much sense to punish them unless the intent can be proven.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Right' date=' but the issue of name control's also tied in with intent know what I'm saying? Whether or not we're to assume that someone who takes someone who'd like to revert's old username should be punished. There's potential for the person who took that username to have not done it with malicious intent, so it doesn't make much sense to punish them unless the intent can be proven.

[/quote']

 

Potential.....potential merely means a possibility. There's equal potential for him to HAVE malicious intent as well.

 

 

However, mine is more valid, on that grounds that not only is there potential for correctness, there is reasonable cause for that possibility to be realized.

 

Your Argument's points:

It's possible it was a coincidence.

 

My Argument's points:

It's possible it wasn't a coincidence.

It eerily occurred at the only opportunity it could.

There was evident ill will towards Hunter from OMGAKITTY.

The account was only online for around 25 seconds, enough time for it to be created, then log off and back onto the creator's real account.

 

My first argument cancels yours out. My other arguments, have no counter but your first repeated over and over. However, I can repeat my first ad infinitum as well. Thus, they infinitely cancel out. My others stand uncontested due to this.

 

And what do you know? I was right.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Right' date=' but the issue of name control's also tied in with intent know what I'm saying? Whether or not we're to assume that someone who takes someone who'd like to revert's old username should be punished. There's potential for the person who took that username to have not done it with malicious intent, so it doesn't make much sense to punish them unless the intent can be proven.

[/quote']

 

Potential.....potential merely means a possibility. There's equal potential for him to HAVE malicious intent as well.

 

 

However, mine is more valid, on that grounds that not only is there potential for correctness, there is reasonable cause for that possibility to be realized.

 

Your Argument's points:

It's possible it was a coincidence.

 

My Argument's points:

It's possible it wasn't a coincidence.

It eerily occurred at the only opportunity it could.

There was evident ill will towards Hunter from OMGAKITTY.

The account was only online for around 25 seconds, enough time for it to be created, then log off and back onto the creator's real account.

 

My first argument cancels yours out. My other arguments, have no counter but your first repeated over and over. However, I can repeat my first ad infinitum as well. Thus, they infinitely cancel out. My others stand uncontested due to this.

 

And what do you know? I was right.

 

You don't get it. Something being likely to have been done out of malicious intent isn't good enough. As long as there's a possibility of them not having done an act out of malicious intent, you can't punish them for malicious intent. Just because your scenario's more likely to've been the case doesn't make it so.

 

You can't sentence one to life-imprisonment for probably murdering someone. If there's a chance that they didn't, you have to observe and consider it.

 

You can't say God doesn't exist just because it's logically very unlikely that he exists. Just because it is doesn't mean "whaddaya know, Atheists win".

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Right' date=' but the issue of name control's also tied in with intent know what I'm saying? Whether or not we're to assume that someone who takes someone who'd like to revert's old username should be punished. There's potential for the person who took that username to have not done it with malicious intent, so it doesn't make much sense to punish them unless the intent can be proven.

[/quote']

 

Potential.....potential merely means a possibility. There's equal potential for him to HAVE malicious intent as well.

 

 

However, mine is more valid, on that grounds that not only is there potential for correctness, there is reasonable cause for that possibility to be realized.

 

Your Argument's points:

It's possible it was a coincidence.

 

My Argument's points:

It's possible it wasn't a coincidence.

It eerily occurred at the only opportunity it could.

There was evident ill will towards Hunter from OMGAKITTY.

The account was only online for around 25 seconds, enough time for it to be created, then log off and back onto the creator's real account.

 

My first argument cancels yours out. My other arguments, have no counter but your first repeated over and over. However, I can repeat my first ad infinitum as well. Thus, they infinitely cancel out. My others stand uncontested due to this.

 

And what do you know? I was right.

 

You don't get it. Something being likely to have been done out of malicious intent isn't good enough. As long as there's a possibility of them not having done an act out of malicious intent, you can't punish them for malicious intent. Just because your scenario's more likely to've been the case doesn't make it so.

 

You can't sentence one to life-imprisonment for probably murdering someone. If there's a chance that they didn't, you have to observe and consider it.

 

You can't say God doesn't exist just because it's logically very unlikely that he exists. Just because it is doesn't mean "whaddaya know, Atheists win".

 

Actually, in most current trials the decision is made on what the jury thinks is likely.

 

As for the God argument, I believe it is logically very likely he exists, but that is a topic for a different thread.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Polaris... All you did was prove him further correct.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polaris... All you did was prove him further correct.

 

Because current court systems are perfectly and undisputably just with no margin for error? Aha, no. "Current court systems" are funked, as are anyone who'd deny that courts have long histories of false judgments and massive blunders in attempting to promote justice. >_>

 

If you were referring to something different, shoot.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Polaris... All you did was prove him further correct.

 

Because current court systems are perfectly and undisputably just with no margin for error? Aha' date=' no. "Current court systems" are f***ed, as are anyone who'd deny that courts have long histories of false judgments and massive blunders in attempting to promote justice. >_>

 

If you were referring to something different, shoot.

[/quote']

 

As flawed as they are, our courts are infinitely more effective than your passive anarchism could ever dream to accomplish.