Defending one's self & alliance

Unknown

Generally speaking, people who act honestly & say they are honest (honest people) are able to produce evidence of their honesty
Real life: alibis to law enforcement, receipts & related documents to IRS, doctors note for school/work

Less honest people tend not to always act honestly (duh lol) & can lie about what they did. They often have many "lucky/unlucky" coincidences & are rarely able to produce evidence of their honesty.
Real life: alibi that only 0-1 other people can verify w nothing other than people's word (no receipts, in private location etc) to law enforcement, taking unreported cash payments & falsifying/mislabeling/misleading receipts to irs, calling in sick (no doctors note/visit) to go to disneyland instead of work/school

shady people also feel the need to defend themselves a lot from any perceived criticism & will also "stick to the script". You will see a lot of "well the car accident wasn't my fault. the street light did [blah blah blah] & there was a pedestrian also [blah blah blah] at the same time. I has no choice but to [blah blah blah]". Never "yeah i was not paying enough attention and I screwed up". These people harm society as a whole by making the world a more difficult place to live because now all the honest people have to deal w seemingly random consequences coming from the less honest. Generally more & sustained defending of one's self w catch phrases means a higher level of care should be exhibited by everyone else as "lots of coincidences" "all the time" is not realistic nor should it actually be defended by anyone, especially third parties whose knowledge of the subject is limited/incomplete.

But the honest people have one thing going for them. The truth. The truth is a light that shines on the darkness of dishonesty. Dishonesty moves and shakes around but over the long run the light tends to prevail more often than not. The honest people have tools like fact finding, diligence, comparative analysis & pure numbers to help them.

as a society, we would be better off if everyone just was more honest. From elected officials to corporations to affinity groups to our own personal lives

Not writing this about anything in particular other than it would be nice for this forum to have more transparency from D3 to alliances to commanders to other teammates to solo players. More genuine debate on topics that are relevant to this forum (including conduct) as compared to people defending themselves. Less defending of one's self w catch phrases & the "coincidence lifestyle".

Unknown

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Actually, I think you'll find that unless I'm acting in some capacity where I have legal authority over you, I have no moral or logical responsibility to assume your innocence

Unknown

gamar wrote:

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Actually, I think you'll find that unless I'm acting in some capacity where I have legal authority over you, I have no moral or logical responsibility to assume your innocence

Quite untrue, as libel and slander laws will remind you. If you're gonna call someone out for a crime, you'd better have some facts behind it to avoid criminal liability for your actions.

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Well if you leave the stolen car parked in your own driveway with the murder weapon in the back seat and you're leaning over the body in your living room, blood smeared on the front door and tell them they don't have a cause for concern . . . .

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Well if you leave the stolen car parked in your own driveway with the murder weapon in the back seat and you're leaning over the body in your living room, blood smeared on the front door and tell them they don't have a cause for concern . . . .

So if someone frames you for something, you would be happy to plead guilty, right?

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

gamar wrote:

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Actually, I think you'll find that unless I'm acting in some capacity where I have legal authority over you, I have no moral or logical responsibility to assume your innocence

Quite untrue, as libel and slander laws will remind you. If you're gonna call someone out for a crime, you'd better have some facts behind it to avoid criminal liability for your actions.

Libel and slander are exactly the sort of things the post is about.

You're not accusing anyone of a crime, are you?

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Well if you leave the stolen car parked in your own driveway with the murder weapon in the back seat and you're leaning over the body in your living room, blood smeared on the front door and tell them they don't have a cause for concern . . . .

So if someone frames you for something, you would be happy to plead guilty, right?

If someone claims to have done something, then tells the judge, 'oh I was just joking, I never would have actually done that' I think they'd have problems to deal with, yes

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Well if you leave the stolen car parked in your own driveway with the murder weapon in the back seat and you're leaning over the body in your living room, blood smeared on the front door and tell them they don't have a cause for concern . . . .

So if someone frames you for something, you would be happy to plead guilty, right?

If someone claims to have done something, then tells the judge, 'oh I was just joking, I never would have actually done that' I think they'd have problems to deal with, yes

If I made a claim I was going to do a crime, a DA would not be able to get a conviction on conspiracy unless he was able to prove means, motive, and opportunity. My claims can provide motive.

They do not satisfy means or opportunity.

If people could be charged for any ol **** they said, cops would do nothing but sit in bars waiting for someone to say they were gonna whoop someone's ****.

Edit: Plus, here's a good example. If I tell you I robbed Fort Knox last night, I'm not gonna face any trouble.

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

gamar wrote:

fidsah wrote:

So, what you're saying, is that in society, it should be acceptable for the police to demand that you prove your innocence on any night you might have been home alone doing nothing if a crime occurred, rather than them having to gather proper evidence that might lead them to the real criminal.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Honest people don't need to prove their honesty. Presumption of innocence exists for a damn good reason. If the cops come to my house looking to question me about a murder I don't even know about, they can schedule an appointment with my lawyer. I'm not about to play some detective's game of proving I didn't do it. That's not how it works.

Just ask the West Memphis Three.

Actually, I think you'll find that unless I'm acting in some capacity where I have legal authority over you, I have no moral or logical responsibility to assume your innocence

Quite untrue, as libel and slander laws will remind you. If you're gonna call someone out for a crime, you'd better have some facts behind it to avoid criminal liability for your actions.

You must be a Brit. We Yanks find your libel and slander laws quite absurd

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

Well if you leave the stolen car parked in your own driveway with the murder weapon in the back seat and you're leaning over the body in your living room, blood smeared on the front door and tell them they don't have a cause for concern . . . .

So if someone frames you for something, you would be happy to plead guilty, right?

If someone claims to have done something, then tells the judge, 'oh I was just joking, I never would have actually done that' I think they'd have problems to deal with, yes

If I made a claim I was going to do a crime, a DA would not be able to get a conviction on conspiracy unless he was able to prove means, motive, and opportunity. My claims can provide motive.

They do not satisfy means or opportunity.

If people could be charged for any ol tinykitty they said, cops would do nothing but sit in bars waiting for someone to say they were gonna whoop someone's ****.

Edit: Plus, here's a good example. If I tell you I robbed Fort Knox last night, I'm not gonna face any trouble.

It would however warrant investigation. If someone says they have a bomb while in an airport, that is a crime in and of itself. Oh the rules and laws of each country vary. There are many places where saying you did something illegal is a crime just as making fun of a leader is a crime.

Pst. Tell Naz we said hello

Unknown

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency. Why would you feel the need to respond in such a way?

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency. Why would you feel the need to respond in such a way?

The premise of the thread is built around the idea that the innocent must prove their innocence, rather than the guilty being proven guilty.

I'm not a member of X-Men, but as a civil libertarian, I find that this premise runs counter to what is healthy for justice. If you have concerns about a specific alliance, report it to Demiurge. If you wanna complain about some ****, complain about some ****.

But if someone is going to make a post explaining how the innocent should be required to prove their innocence to the police, I'll again refer you to the West Memphis Three.

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency. Why would you feel the need to respond in such a way?

The premise of the thread is built around the idea that the innocent must prove their innocence, rather than the guilty being proven guilty.

I'm not a member of X-Men, but as a civil libertarian, I find that this premise runs counter to what is healthy for justice. If you have concerns about a specific alliance, report it to Demiurge. If you wanna complain about some tinykitty, complain about some tinykitty.

But if someone is going to make a post explaining how the innocent should be required to prove their innocence to the police, I'll again refer you to the West Memphis Three.

I don't believe this was in the original post

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

I'm not a member of X-Men, but as a civil libertarian, I find that this premise runs counter to what is healthy for justice. If you have concerns about a specific alliance, report it to Demiurge. If you wanna complain about some tinykitty, complain about some tinykitty.

The root of the problem is that both X-Men and Demiurge eroded the trust.

So no wonder we're stuck and some people to revert to historic methods involving ducks and balances.


Is there any wonder that the monkey's confused?

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency. Why would you feel the need to respond in such a way?

The premise of the thread is built around the idea that the innocent must prove their innocence, rather than the guilty being proven guilty.

I'm not a member of X-Men, but as a civil libertarian, I find that this premise runs counter to what is healthy for justice. If you have concerns about a specific alliance, report it to Demiurge. If you wanna complain about some tinykitty, complain about some tinykitty.

But if someone is going to make a post explaining how the innocent should be required to prove their innocence to the police, I'll again refer you to the West Memphis Three.

I don't believe this was in the original post

You should reread it then. That's exactly what the real life examples are describing.

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency.

Even if so, how would an mpq player do so while not revealing his strategies?

Unknown

ihearthawthats wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency.

Even if so, how would an mpq player do so while not revealing his strategies?

Why, Naz actually revealed them alright in chat, see the neighbor topic in the OFF group.

Unknown

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

fidsah wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

btw I believe this entire thread is about honesty and transparency. Why would you feel the need to respond in such a way?

The premise of the thread is built around the idea that the innocent must prove their innocence, rather than the guilty being proven guilty.

I'm not a member of X-Men, but as a civil libertarian, I find that this premise runs counter to what is healthy for justice. If you have concerns about a specific alliance, report it to Demiurge. If you wanna complain about some tinykitty, complain about some tinykitty.

But if someone is going to make a post explaining how the innocent should be required to prove their innocence to the police, I'll again refer you to the West Memphis Three.

I don't believe this was in the original post

You should reread it then. That's exactly what the real life examples are describing.

Nope. I wrote the OP. Basically it says that honest people tend have evidence of their honesty while the dishonest have "coincidences".

Citing fringe examples is always a weak form of argument. Sure there is always one/some weird exception(s). Ebola kills 99% of people. If I find someone in the 1% who survived, should I say "this is the new norm!". No. Obviously not. exceptions are exceptions

Generally the dishonest tend not to have valid alibis/stories because they were in fact dishonest. That's the point.

Unknown

While we're on the psychology / sociology lesson, people who accuse others of something (eg cheating) are the ones more likely to be doing it themselves. If you don't believe the theory I gather that Jeremy Kyle has proof

Unknown

also it was to say that people who tend to defend themselves "too much" & "too often" generally tend to be dishonest. Honest people can generally explain what happened quite clearly (whether real life juries believe those claims is another story for another time)

But I have learned in life: when a person is too defensive, there is a reason. generally one they are trying to hide