Evidence me.

[Netdroid9]

I missed the latest scandle due to certain forces that were beyond my control (Salmonella infection, hospital, wrong tests ordered, don't ask), so I'll make this short. One sentence short, in fact.

Where the hell was the evidence that Psyconaut80 was DLM in disguise?

[Embri]

1. His address began with drluplinmario@...
2. He insisted on using all of DLM's characters.
3. He attempted to bribe other Dojodians to "follow" him with vague promises
4. His physical location (as tracked by IP) was almost identical to DLM's.
5. He appeared shortly after DLM was banned.
6. He was rude and insulting just like DLM was.
7. He admitted that he was sharing an account with DLM. (yeah.. right. >.>)

[LordPsycho]

Does it matter, he was banned for action taken under the Psychonaut account.

Oh, and check the thread in the Meeting Hall

[3kul]

Jeez Net, have a little bit of faith in us . You think we'd ban someone without evidence?

Embri's summed up the reasons behind the bannage pretty well. If you have anymore questions about this, read through the appropriate threads in the Meeting House and Closed Doors before you ask them, as I'm sure that we've already covered everything in there.

[Netdroid9]

[GBE]

Have you checked the meeting house Net...? DP posted up some pretty solid evidence as to why Psychonaut8 should have been banned.

Lemme see, bribary, lack of respect, lack of apologies, and arrogant taunting.

Yeah, that would pretty much be a good reason to ban anyone. Even if he wasn't DLM, he's still done enough to warrant a permanent ban.....

Or, would you like everyone that we onlyhave, say, 88% evidence is guilty of something to run amok, just because we can't exactly go to their houses and log onto their computers, to find out exactly whats going on....?

[Netdroid9]

I suppose Psyconaut80 deserved to be banned too. All I'm really concerned with here though is the way it was handled and especially why he was accused of being DLM without decent evidence to support that. It just strikes me as disrespectful, and I'd hate to think what we'd look like if we did this to someone perfectly innocent.

I just think we should start giving the benefit of the doubt in these matters, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[GBE]

I agree innocence until proven guilty, but have you actually read the hall of records thread at all...? And some of the others..?

Psychonaut8 was not accused of anyting until his typing became worse, and he started to ignore every piece of advice given to him...

He was given a second chance (third if you count that he was given a warning) and he ignored us, and trtied to bribe the members of Blackstar, and DP....

I doubt people would seriously jump the gun without due curse. And DP remained impartial for most of it, and allowed the mods to try and deal with the situation. So we know when DP makes a statement of any kind, he's being serious....

[HisLordship]

Perhaps the codification of a certain legal test ought to be used? A series of questions to ask in order to determine if the suspension is justified? In Canada, the legal test demonstrated in the case R. v. Oakes tells courts whether the suspension of an individual's rights is justified or not. Could we not do the self-same thing?

[Netdroid9]

He was sharing an account with a banned user, and that's circumventing a ban, let alone the various other rules that were broken. He needed to be banned, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying we handled it wrong.

That's exactly my point, GBE. His typing worsened and he ignored our advice. DLM did the same. Does that mean they're both the same person? No. It means they're both suspiciously similar, but that doesn't give us the right to accuse him of being DLM. But we did. And that doesn't strike me as a particularly nice and mature thing to do, especially from our moderators.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that we should not have accused him of being DLM, despite our assumptions. Hell, even if we had all the evidence in the world we shouldn't have accused him of being DLM. It was unnecessary. It was immature. And it doesn't reflect well on us.

And for the record GBE, we do jump the gun sometimes. And by sometimes, I mean often. Look at the MEC plot, Parents plot, et cetera. 'Nuff said.

[LordPsycho]

Net, I understand your concern. But I see it as a non-issue.

I personally put my suspicions aside about his possible dual identity, and only put him up for banning because of actions taken by the Psychonaut account. In my eyes, he was banned for trying to bribe me in order to get me to unban DLM (again assuming they are indeed different accounts).

I, however, do applaud your concern, Net. All you are trying to do is make sure we ourselves followed the values and rules that we hold our users to. I cannot ask any more of a mod or admin. Thank you.

[Dr Tanner]

If I may be so bold as to add my own two pence here (LOLOLOL BRITISH!!1!~!), I can't help but feel that this is the same "Softly, Softly" approach being used by the police and other authority figures in the UK. This concerns me, chiefly because it doesn't work.

Having looked over the Meeting House and the evidence therein, I can safely say that Psychonaut was DLM, beyond all reasonable doubt, that doubt arising simply from this being the internet and not being able to waltz over there and look.

Net, I know you have the forum's best intentions at heart but some people are not worthy of kindness or "the benefit of the doubt". It's that attitude that's causing the economy over here in the UK to implode. Because the government wants to give everyone "the benefit of the doubt", our society is now full of freeloading chavs and immigrants, leeching the taxpayer's money, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for truly genuine people like myself to get by.

Psychonaut was DLM. It's that simple. Case closed. I think this entire incident was handled superbly by the admins and mods of the forum, although I personally would be banning DLM's IP to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again, if that's a possible option. Sometimes harshness is necessary.

[Netdroid9]

[3kul]

Mind explaining what it is you're trying to achieve here, Net? Because you've lost me

Yes, it's impossible for us to prove without a shadow of a doubt that DLM and Psyconaut are one and the same. However, it's just as impossible for you to prove that they are in fact two different people. In my opinion this is just a waste of time now, what the hell is the point in us arguing about whether or not we treated people who may not even have existed with the respect that they may or may not have deserved? But whatever, I'm happy to waste my time on just about anything atm, so I'll just keep talking .

I still believe that they were the same two people (and I probably won't be changing my mind anytime soon), but I've at least considered the possibility that they're two different people, and throughout this entire ordeal I've posted carefully because of this. Even if Psyconaut was a seperate person to DLM, what kind of respect are you saying that they deserve Net? This wasn't some poor innocent victim we were dealing with here, from the very beginning Psyconaut was breaking our rules and pretty much spitting on our way of doing things. If he wasn't ignoring advice and warnings, he was making up his own crappy line of argument that was usually a very thinly veiled 'I'm doing what I want, so shut up about it already'.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm not sure what you want us to say here Net . Yes, if Psyconaut had been a totally innocent and reasonable person (ie: somebody who listened to advice and warnings), we obviously would've treated them a lot better, but this all ended up being a case of Psyconaut reaping what he sowed. Again, this is all assuming that Psyconaut even existed, something which nobody here is able to prove .

[Dr Tanner]