You (to your credit) state your obvious bias for Jon, [Correct] then sidetrack your whole argument [there is no argument at this point, I'm stating my experience with my friend.] about people not having all the information making assumptions by making up your hypothetical scenario. [Gino was there. He either had the laptop or he didn't. I don't get what you're trying to say here. I don't know if he took the laptop with 100% certainty so, yes, of course it's hypothetical. Also, your IQ has to be 50 some-odd points higher than mine because in all seriousness I hardly understood that.]
Wrong, you don't know that as you have only anecdotal accounts from Jon himself. It's okay to think he's innocent until proven guilty [This isn't about the law. This is about TPCi. What is "guilty" in their eyes? ...we just don't know, nor will we ever. You're assuming your definition of "guilty" is deserving of a ban. That may or may not be true but it is just speculation.]but you're making assumptions left and right to justify your belief that your friend is innocent. The fact is that you have both accounts of the same situation - one not so flattering (Jason mentioning that Jon needed to be stopped by him before turning around and returning the cards- a bit extreme for a "joke", no?) and a second hand account from you, having heard from Jon (supposedly) saying that it WAS indeed all a joke in poor taste. While one is no more valid than the other, the only constant is that Jon - regardless of intention - did take someone's cards at the same event and had to be verbally stopped before returning them.
People are entitled to their opinions. [So, it's right to throw annotated propaganda around the internet to draw negative attention to this issue? The Spanish Pooper likely got banned because of the negative publicity caused by the stunt. These people are generating publicity for the sake of publicity and to pressure action by TPCi] Just like your opinionated piece about your friend. [People can have their opinions but I don't think it's right to use that free speech to influence people that are less informed in such a biased way. Have you seen the Reddit post? It labels them both as thieves and only cites Mees's documents completely out of context to put a negative spin on things.] TPCi should expect backlash given that the transparency behind decisions is non-existent. In this particular case, given the one-sided evidence and precedents set by TPCi with bans before, it's hard to rationalize why no action was taken [Not really. This isn't hurting them directly like issue at UK nationals did. In that case they had to act quickly to protect their brand. In this case they can afford to consider more factors.]. Unless evidence to the contrary is given (and it doesn't help that Jon did have the cards - but mailed them back, and that Gino hasn't said anything meaningful), there's no reason for everyone to believe otherwise.
You forget to account for the fact that Jason didn't necessarily know that contact had been made between Jon and Mees at the time of his account [But it had to be his business in the first place?]. Therefore you putting the smear on him is unjustified [This goes beyond the first post. Citing examples would force me to name names, which I don't want to do at this point because they may have incriminated Jon and/or Gino] (and ironic considering your stance on this matter), given that he may only be calling it as he experienced it. Did he blame Jon directly for Mees' cards? [Yup.]
Your second suggestion that this whole thing should have been kept quiet... I don't know what to say. Theft is theft. [The Pokemon community can't do anything about theft. The police can. That didn't help Mees but it also doesn't change the fact that the Pokemon community can't physically force anyone to give Mees's items back] Mees made it clear that Jon had returned the cards. Gino hasn't returned the laptop. His experience with the hotel security and Vancouver police is documented. He hasn't done anything wrong based on the info we have, and has every right to call out the people responsible (with sound evidence, even). Whether he would have gotten the stolen articles back had things been kept quiet is another assumption you make, [Assumptions, the root of all evil apparently. I think it's reasonable to believe Mees would have a better chance to get his things back from Gino if Gino had less to loose by doing so. But what do I know, I'm just assuming.]and is irrelevant to the fact that both Gino and Jon did something wrong in rummaging through someone else's property (that they had no right to) and taking something without permission.
And my main point...
Hard to believe this can even be defended. [You clearly think what Jon did was completely unjustified. I disagree. While theft occurred laws aren't the ultimate decider of right vs wrong. Laws are for Governments. TPCi is at the liberty to take other factors into account] There's video, picture, and written evidence of the whole thing... people have been banned for way less than this. [Is it not clear that TPCi handles these things on a case by case basis? Breaking a law doesn't always equal or justify a ban from TPCi. This goes back to TPCi's point as well. It didn't occur during their event. I bet there are PLENTY or convicted felons playing Pokemon. In fact, I know at least 2. Should we ban them too for what they did outside Pokemon's doors?]
- - - Updated - - -
[Nobody (except maybe Gino, I don't know) denies that Jon was in the lobby and going through bags.]
So he knew he was missing something.
He knew what he was missing - that's why he helped himself to someone else's luggage.
He knew what he was missing, but still took something extra by "accident". [You're assuming he knew everything he was missing? I thought you hated assumptions. Helped himself to someone else's luggage? His bag in cards were in their luggage. You really spin that like you know Jon had some real dark intentions. Jon's bag was taken and put with their luggage. What do you do about that? What can the authorities do? It becomes a he said she said situation over hundreds of dollars of cards. I DO agree it was a form of theft but in a way, I feel it was somewhat justified (not the taking of the extra cards, but the things that belonged to him). Unlawful actions aren't always unjust in my opinion. And no good thief just takes the cards and gives them right back (yeah, assumptions, sorry. Burn me at the stake). We'll have to disagree about this. You can assume he took them on purpose and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt based on how he acted after the fact. Neither of our opinions matter in the ultimate scheme of things.]
Right....Alright then.
