FeanD Alpha for 10k PED anyone?

[dbelinfante]

I like to consider myself a moral person, with compassion for my fellow human beings. Reading this thread has shown me clearly that I have yet to be tested to the extremes of my principles.

Let me get back to you on that at the end of this reply.

Firstly, and most crucially, the first party - CZ - can offer NO EVIDENCE to support his claim that he himself did not conclude this transaction.

Irrelevant. No one in his right mind will maintain that CronZero consciously, deliberately paid more than 10k ped for a wortless pistol. In fact, no one IS maintaining this.

The official response from MA to his support ticket indicates that they too were unable to discover any evidence in support of this claim. This makes any debate about the proceeds from this transaction moot. Unfortunately, the burden of proof rests with CZ. It is also unfortunate that finding such proof or evidence may well be impossible. So, in good faith we accept his claim, but cannot do anything but commiserate, and trust that he has taken steps to prevent a recurrence.

Again, irrelevant. This all goes to factual, technical, juridical wrongdoing. There hasn't been any, or if there has, CZ is not shifting responsibility. Nor is anyone else. From all practical angles, this is CZ's problem, and his alone.

Secondly, the person who is clearly completely innocent - X - is now being pilloried on a public forum, the impact of which will surely be felt in-game, and possibly even in his real life as well. I do not think this is justified. I do not believe we have the right in any way to sit in judgement of this person's moral character. Whatever decision he makes will be governed by influences beyond our knowledge. To comment on that decision without knowledge of the motivation would be a mistake.

Wrong. We can comment and judge all we like. You do it here too, expressing your opinion on what the rest should and should not do. So practice what you preach and shut up from now on, or join the chorus!

It is true that X has profitted from CZ's misfortune, but this does not make him guilty or complicit.

Thank you for stipulating this. It is the heart of the matter.

Our anger should be directed exclusively at the author of this misfortune

I hadn't realized you were angry. Apart from Samantha Carter (who is rage-prone), there were no angry participants in this debate, not even xpun8 or CronZero.

Now back to your first claim: You consider yourself a moral person. You also admit you've yet to be tested - really tested.

This was such a test. You admit CZ's misfortune is xpun8's good luck. Wether CZ made a mistake, or he was hacked, or however all of his funds were used as a bid on a worthless pistol, his money ended up in xpun8's possession. Technically, legally, there's been no wrongdoing, at least none that can be proven. But something really unfortunate happened to CronZero. xpun8 has the opportunity to completely reverse that. He will be no worse off than he was before (even better, he will have shown character and strong morals). It is a rare chance, it doesn't often happen that bad luck can be reversed with no negative side effects for anyone.

And now you are saying you'd follow xpun8's example?

 

[dbelinfante]

You should read a little closer...or tell me where I've said I'm keeping the money.

You haven't. I'm saying it. And hoping you'll prove me wrong.

That's right, just like I didn't need to hear it from you. As for my plans...unless you're the voice in my head shut up.

Actually, the voice in your head is the only one you have any chance of silencing.

You don't know, do you have some sort of god complex?

This is called projection.

If I submit the winning bid in an auction and it more than TT I have the right to ask for my money back?

Don't go there again, this is not about the auction. Just an attempt to distract from the question: Are you going to give the money back to Cronzero or not? It's clear by now you like to play. But the longer you keep hinting that there's still a remote chance you'll give (some of) it back, the less credible you become, because apart from not having the moral backbone to just give it back, now you are also tormenting a person, dangling a small fortune in front of him, a fortune that used to be his and he didn't willingly part with.

When no one out bid him he was the proud owner of a FreanD Alpha (with a little coke in the grip). Live and learn, not live and ask for a "do over".

I know how the auction works. And it seems you're just a little more twisted still than I gave you credit for.

 

[dbelinfante]

actually, it it neither mean nor immoral. the word you are looking for is amoral. the act of keeping the money, legally obtained, is a neutral act - neither moral nor immoral.

Wrong. The legality is irrelevant. Law has very little to do with morality. It is immoral, as in not-moral. Not amoral.

that's correct. you can't.

I can't? And I'm still doing it? One of us lives in the Twilight Zone. *Looks around* Nope, not me!

as the act is neutral

which it isn't ,

it is not worth of emotional comment.

says you.

you cannot apply a moral bias to it

I can and I do

as this would be pejorative

says you - just an opinion really.

yes, you can advise him that<snip>

More forum- and thought police.

Don't tell me what I can and cannot do. I don't presume to do so with xpun8, or even with you.

 

[Samantha Carter]

I hadn't realized you were angry. Apart from Samantha Carter (who is rage-prone), there were no angry participants in this debate, not even xpun8 or CronZero.

Not rage Prone. Just sick of you self righteous idiots that think you can project your views of morality on others as if its the only view on things. Seriously WHO are you? Not anyone that matters here. And your right im not a moderator but i can see when things are getting out of hand. So don't go acting like your not getting passion involved with your replys. Its pretty evidant that you are. Thats the thing with you liberal types. You throw your mouth around thinking your gonna cure some problem thats out there, but then when the battle starts based of of YOUR words, You push it off saying that "Its not me, I wasn't in this battle". Shuv it or Shut it.

Once again i say. YOUR MORALS ARE YOUR MORALS. Not mine or anyones here. So if you want to start preaching Go become a priest so you can project your views on people that came Looking for them in the first place. Im not here saying your views are right or wrong nor am i saying there not inline with mine. Im Saying is ITS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE RIGHT FROM WRONG FOR HIM. Im sure he's really worried about your + or - rep too. Big Deal. And if hes got a bad rep in the game for standing up for what he believes and people like you harrass him for it. Alls hes got to do is make a New avatar. Give all the stuff hes got to that one. And then remove the old one. Done. No more worrying.

 

[Jhereg]

That is some nice stuff you have there Loki !!!

As for the topic of the thread--All I can say is Wow-Wow--and well Wow--

I really don't remember this being called to trial by Jury-but in either case one guy, Xylan, has had his reputation destroyed-another guy, CZ, is getting handouts(besides being out a lot of peds) and a respected Society has lost an up and coming member that could have proven to be a great asset in future land grabs. I shall reserve my judgement until all the cards are placed on the table-CZ and XY need to sort this out between themselves-Both have made crutial mistakes in how they have handled this situation-both of them need to sort out what to do next.

I hope in the end we will see the outcome posted by BOTH XY and CZ. After the cards are laid out and final decisions made you may pass judgement on those actions taken-until then you are only adding fuel to a fire that is burning out of control.

XY-this is a very hard game to play and enjoy when you are alone-your reputation destroyed and your every move watched and questioned. I understand the fairness of an auction, you have made that point very clear, please understand the importance of your reputation-obviously your past Soc mates do.

CZ-I wish upon you Good Luck and hope you find the source of this problem. Remember that with every wrong step forward you will have to take that step backwards-Sometimes standing in place and looking around will get you further ahead.

Good Luck to all, happy Looting

Gandolf Losi

Well said reply, my sentiments exactly. +rep.

 

[dbelinfante]

Not rage Prone. Just sick of you self righteous idiots <snip>

But not rage-prone, oh no!

So don't go acting like your not getting passion involved with your replys. Its pretty evidant that you are.

Strawman. Never said this. And to make it more clear, just for you: Of course I feel passionate about this. This never was a debate about facts.

Thats the thing with you liberal types.

Biggest foot-in-mouth example so far: I am the absolute LAST person on this forum that might pass for liberal. Unless you have no clue what that means (which is not all that unlikely).
You won't be able to offend me, no matter how hard you try. But this is the closest you were ever going to get!

You throw your mouth around thinking your gonna cure some problem thats out there, but then when the battle starts based of of YOUR words, You push it off saying that "Its not me, I wasn't in this battle". Shuv it or Shut it.

Well you lost me here. You probably lost yourself here too. But not rage-prone, oh no!

Once again i say<snip>

It still refuses to seep into whatever you use for a brain that - like you in fact - I can say what I like here (mod's discretion permitting), except that - unlike you - I think about what I say before I say it, and I do it fairly politely.

You like what I have to say even less than I like xpun8's stance. And you're going much further in your attempts to change my behaviour than I am regarding him.

Does this make any sense to you at all? Because it doesn't to me.

 

[Samantha Carter]

First off what is strawman? IS this something you created or too much watching Wizard of oz? Not sure but its meaningless...

No Foot in mouth about my statement in the slightest bit. The deffination of Liberal and the way its displayed in todays society are very different. The way you are displaying yourself leads to the later. All talk and hype but when comes to action and things get heated, you run and hide your head and say that you were not involved, when if i recall, its you thats the center of this refering to him as if he was a theif or a scammer.

My Aim isn't to offend you. Its to point out that your trying to force your views on someone else by using ridicule and harrassment. (And yes by saying someone lacks a backbone IS harrasment) And at the same time your contridicting yourself by saying you are Not trying to force. And now read this carefully so you can understand fullying. Im not saying you ARE forcing. You are TRYING to force your views. Clearly you cant actually force anything over a forum. But clearly you keep trying. Why?

Seriously what do you care what he does with HIS money? Why try and convert him to your set of moral standards?

 

[dbelinfante]

First off what is strawman? IS this something you created or too much watching Wizard of oz? Not sure but its meaningless...

Excuse me for assuming a basic knowledge of English when engaging in debate with me. Also, you could have looked it up, as I have done for you: Strawman - An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. Check here
You are both actually and intellectally lazy, aren't you?

No Foot in mouth about my statement in the slightest bit. The deffination of Liberal and the way its displayed in todays society are very different. The way you are displaying yourself leads to the later.

What 'later' (sic) is that? What are you blabbering about?

All talk and hype but when comes to action and things get heated, you run and hide your head and say that you were not involved

Where do I display this behaviour? Where do I run and hide? Where do I say I am not involved? Please check the definition for Strawman once more.

when if i recall, its you thats the center of this refering to him as if he was a theif or a scammer.

More strawmen. Samantha Carter going for an ATH. I more than once explicitly said he is none of the above. Just sorely lacking in morals.

My Aim isn't to offend you. Its to point out that your trying to force your views on someone else by using ridicule and harrassment.

No I'm not. You can say this as often as you like, it still won't become the truth.

(And yes by saying someone lacks a backbone IS harrasment)

If you think this is harassment, I hope for your sake you never get harassed. Please look up such words before you use them, you clearly don't know what they mean.

And at the same time your contridicting yourself by saying you are Not trying to force.

Show me, just once, where I am contradicting myself.

And now read this carefully so you can understand fullying. Im not saying you ARE forcing. You are TRYING to force your views.

As in arguing a certain point of view? Like you are too?

Clearly you cant actually force anything over a forum.

So why are you so worried about that then?

But clearly you keep trying. Why?

Why do you? Answer that, and you'll understand. I've tried, if you don't get it by now, it's hopeless.

Seriously what do you care what he does with HIS money? Why try and convert him to your set of moral standards?

In the long run, he'll be a better person if he gives the money back. And he might teach you a lesson as well.

Have you noticed by the way, I always respond to your questions, and you never respond to mine? Just more ad hominems. Why is that?

 

[NoBion]

Seriously what do you care what he does with HIS money? Why try and convert him to your set of moral standards?

This is what the Discussion is about.. Is it "really his, if we think in a moral way, and not a techincal way

 

[kira-red]

Don't tell me what I can and cannot do. I don't presume to do so with xpun8, or even with you.

I am, most certainly, not telling you what to do. you may do as you please. all I'm doing is providing language definitions and positioning the argument accordingly.

please do not take things so personally. in an effort to be clearer, I will use the word "one" for the general "you" and the word "you" to represent youself specifically. I apologise if my my use of "you" for both has caused confusion.

It is immoral, as in not-moral. Not amoral.

your mathematics are faulty. the proper logic is not-moral = immoral + amoral, where "+" is read as "or". you claim not-moral = immoral. you then state amoral = not (moral * immoral), where "*" is read as "and". this, of course, fails the identity relationship, invalidating your initial claim.

morality is not a binary system, as you suggested, above. it has three states - good (moral), neutral (amoral), bad (immoral). until you accept this, there is no point in discussing this situation with you.

when one does not recognise the neutral state (which can also be decribed as tolerance), one finds oneself lost in the "if you're not with me you're against me" quagmire. this philosophy has caused a great deal of harm throughout history.

statements such as:

One of us lives in the Twilight Zone

says you.

More forum- and thought police.

contribute nothing and are emotive , bordering upon insulting.

 

[dbelinfante]

I am, most certainly, not telling you what to do. you may do as you please. all I'm doing is providing language definitions and positioning the argument accordingly.

Try harder. Your definitions suck. Use one that doesn't originate from the little Kira-red book.

Please do not take things so personally.

You were addressing me.

in an effort to be clearer, I will use the word "one" for the general "you" and the word "you" to represent youself specifically.

OK, maybe not JUST me.

I apologise

Accepted.

your mathematics are faulty.

So whose mathematics are you referring to? Mine, or a more general audience, the entire EF forum? I do wish you'd make up your mind.

And I'm not even going to ask you what mathematics have to do with this. Please refrain from explaining.

the proper logic is n

<snip use of pseudo-mathematics in an attempt to draw the debate away from the moral issue>

until you accept this, there is no point in discussing this situation with you.

Please feel free to break off at any time. There never was a point to begin with, surprised you thought otherwise!

statements such as:
contribute nothing and are emotive , bordering upon insulting.

I'm clever that way. But don't take it personal, even though I was addressing you.

 

[xpun8]

illegitimis non carborundum or something like that

The problem with posting anything here is that everyone is going to read and interpet it according to their culture and upbringing. Deblinfante called me "thick"...given the context of the way it's used I believe (now) he was calling me one of the following: hard headed (stubborn), stupid or ignorant. When I first read it, prior to replying, I thought this person had found a picture of me and liked my muscle definition Some people here "spout" off a reply before fully understanding what's being said. Other people just say stuff to get people spooled up. I admire Deblinfante's passion and/or need to make sure he's understood, says a lot about a person. Passion is a good thing most of the time, sometimes passion causes bad things... Anyway, I just wanted to point out that most of us come from different places and interpet things differently. Not that I felt it needed to be, but because I promised myself I wouldn't post anymore stuff that defends me or what I've done until everything is sorted.

With that...happy looting.

 

[kira-red]

Try harder. Your definitions suck. Use one that doesn't originate from the little Kira-red book.

actually, my definitions come from the oxford dictionary of english. if you wish, you may also refer to the merriam-webster dictionary of american english, where you will find the same definitions.

please, do not be argumentive without a reference. further, do not be insulting when you haven't even bothered to do the research.

And I'm not even going to ask you what mathematics have to do with this. Please refrain from explaining.

that's too bad, because it's central to the point. the math in question is boolean algebra. feel free to explore this at your convenance.

boolean algebra is taught in non-technical streams (political science, psychology, law, etc.) as logic.

There never was a point to begin with, surprised you thought otherwise!

there is, most certainly, a point. I'm sorry it was lost upon you. I will summarize (in the context of this discussion):

moral - something accepted as good. I agree that the moral thing to do, in this case, is to give the money back.

amoral - something tolerated because it is neither good or bad. xpun8 can keep the money without being immoral because he did nothing wrong (which is to say he did not steal it).

immoral - something condemed as wrong. in this case, tagging xpun8 with an immoral act when he did not commit one is rumourmongering. this, because of the effect it has on an innocent party, is wrong. one may not like the possible outcome, but that does not give one the right to suggest he is evil.

finally, when one suggests another is immoral when they are not; the accusing party is, by definition, immoral through implied lies.

I'm clever that way. But don't take it personal, even though I was addressing you.

insults do not score you points, and I do not see your debating technique as being clever in any way.

additionally, berating me without substance does not help those in question, as I am a neutral party. in fact, it may damage that which you desire as an outcome. this situation is best left to the two involved to resolve themselves - without biased intervention.

both of us are neutral bystanders. it is not our place to influence the outcome when apparently no wrong was committed.

 

[kira-red]

illegitimis non carborundum or something like that

hahahahaha. that's funny. unfortunately, it's not latin. it just looks like it.

actually, the literal latin translation of the phrase's english intent would be:
Noli nothis permittere te terere. I think this is correct (I had to look it up). my latin is terrible now, although I did manage to pass the course.

 

[Jimmy B]

moral - something accepted as good. I agree that the moral thing to do, in this case, is to give the money back.

amoral - something tolerated because it is neither good or bad. xpun8 can keep the money without being immoral because he did nothing wrong (which is to say he did not steal it).

immoral - something condemed as wrong. in this case, tagging xpun8 with an immoral act when he did not commit one is rumourmongering. this, because of the effect it has on an innocent party, is wrong. one may not like the possible outcome, but that does not give one the right to suggest he is evil.

You argue your points well, however I don't agree with your assertion that just because nothing wrong was done in acquiring the money, that keeping the money is amoral.

He has two choices:

(i) Choose not to profit from someone else's misfortune/mistake and to return the money - legal, moral.
(ii) Choose to profit from someone else's misfortune/mistake and to keep the money - legal, immoral

Now, regarding the posts from people that are likening some other's posts to Bible bashing:

Firstly I don't think Bible bashers are actually bad people. They generally believe they are acting for the good of the people they bash. They don't normally cause any harm other than nuisance similar to those that phone me up at home whilst I'm eating and try to sell me window glazing. Its annoying. Its not evil. For the few who are mentally weak enough to be convinced by bible bashers, well maybe believing in something and having a faith will do them some good.

Secondly, morality and religion are not the same thing. We can do just fine without religion. We cannot do fine at all without morality. And morality is not something we are born with, it is taught to us by our parents, our teachers, our friends, our acquaintances. So to say we shouldn't try to teach others what we believe to be the correct thing to do is ludicrous. Sure lets have a world where nobody teaches anyone any morals, a world where people believe that if something is legal then it is OK to do it, a world where if people think they can get away with it then it is OK to do it, a world where no empathy is shown for our fellow human beings.... well I see a lot of that around already and sorry, but if I can do something to change it, even if a tiny bit, then I will. You can say I'm self-righteous (I'm not, I'm often wrong, we all are, and I'm happy to admit it and learn from it when I am) and you can say I'm harassing someone (I'm not, posting something on a forum is passive communication, anyone who reads my post makes a choice to do so) but if my words lead someone to do the right thing, just once, then it will have been worthwhile.

Finally, there are some moral conundrums that can be made up, and that crop up in life from time to time, where it is very difficult to determine what the right course of action is. Two very moral people could easily reach different conclusions in such a circumstance. Well, despite all the argument and the length of this thread, this is NOT such a circumstance. This is an extremely simple situation where only a tiny bit of empathy for another human being is required to figure out the moral solution. Someone has a choice to either profit or not from someone else's misfortune or mistake. There is no moral conundrum here. It is ridiculously simple.