DQed from regionals and BANNED two weeks later (I was set-up)

[Otaku]

As I cannot get the original security footage to view first hand, I would prefer a second (unrelated) witness... but what can I say, I like high standards of proof.

It is perhaps unfortunate that some good points were raised technically in defense of Gino. I am hoping that the banning had nothing to do with the tournament DQ (and vice versa) - assuming TPCi had both the eye witness testimony and the footage that corroborated it, that would be sufficient to issue a ban. Judges saying someone was glancing at the bottom of the deck after shuffles doesn't seem worth a lifetime ban unless this it at least the second time for being booted from a tournament for the violation. Still not happy with what led to the DQ; but in light of this mess such a topic is probably best handled in a different thread.

 

[MiniWade]

The eyewitness has read our recent discussion, and decided to share the truth with the community.

http://i.imgur.com/24uz9m6.gif

For those of you who might not recognize the name, James took third place at Worlds in Vancouver. Consider how great he must have felt that morning, and then having these events get wrapped around his neck. Here is the first article I found celebrating his victory.

http://www.monroemonitor.com/2013/08/20/james-good-third-best-in-the-world-at-pokemon/

Justice has been served!

 

[Cyrus]

What justice? It was common knowledge that James came forth about this stuff, and Mees still doesn't have his laptop back. We should be proud he did it, though.

The banning won't be reversed, but the stealing debacle is still a weight on Gino. He should just find a very trustworthy, neutral third party in the community he can send the laptop to, who would then send the laptop to Mees. In case the laptop has been disposed of, send a check for the value of the laptop. Confidentiality agreement...abandonment of claims...boom. Done.

 

[PokePop]

As I cannot get the original security footage to view first hand, I would prefer a second (unrelated) witness... but what can I say, I like high standards of proof.

Maybe we can arrange for a 3-D hologram.
Or arrange for the use of a Pensieve, if we can just get a memory wisp from one of the participants.
Sorry, but the real word doesn't usually get a perfect picture of things done illicitly. Very few people say "Hey everyone, take a look at what I'm doing so you can note it for later when you tell the police. Here, take my picture for me. Thanks!"

 

[Abudoggie]

What justice? It was common knowledge that James came forth about this stuff, and Mees still doesn't have his laptop back. We should be proud he did it, though.

The banning won't be reversed, but the stealing debacle is still a weight on Gino. He should just find a very trustworthy, neutral third party in the community he can send the laptop to, who would then send the laptop to Mees. In case the laptop has been disposed of, send a check for the value of the laptop. Confidentiality agreement...abandonment of claims...boom. Done.

John, a responsible adult near and dear to your heart tried to reach out and offer such a lifeline to set things right (with the support and counsel of a couple others here). No return contact was made. Probably many teachable moments in this. That is a big one: When you are in a jam, done something stupid and in trouble gang, get some trusted people involved with life experience to make good decisions (its not weakness to do so, its a strength). "Winging it", diverting from the issue and hoping everything gets better usually ends ugly and embarrassing. Funny how cheaply some value their own integrity and reputation.

 

[Articjedi]

I'm not sure about justice, but hopefully with James' post we can get past the whole, "did Gino do it" schtick that I'm sick of seeing and we can maybe coerce Gino to return the laptop, or the monetary value thereof. And Otaku, if I were defensive counsel for a criminal case, I'd totally want you on my jury, I'd be that much closer to getting the murderer or rapist I'm defending off scott-free.

 

[Otaku]

Maybe we can arrange for a 3-D hologram.
Or arrange for the use of a Pensieve, if we can just get a memory wisp from one of the participants.
Sorry, but the real word doesn't usually get a perfect picture of things done illicitly. Very few people say "Hey everyone, take a look at what I'm doing so you can note it for later when you tell the police. Here, take my picture for me. Thanks!"

I'm not sure about justice, but hopefully with James' post we can get past the whole, "did Gino do it" schtick that I'm sick of seeing and we can maybe coerce Gino to return the laptop, or the monetary value thereof. And Otaku, if I were defensive counsel for a criminal case, I'd totally want you on my jury, I'd be that much closer to getting the murderer or rapist I'm defending off scott-free.

It is recognized that human memory is a fallible thing; as a quick reference you can find a New York Times article here. People can also willingly lie, or are you assuming Gino has had some sort of break with reality and that Gino himself believes he really did not take the laptop at the same time you are trusting testimony as honest and accurate that he did?

So... what did I actually say in my post.

As I cannot get the original security footage to view first hand...

I point out that I do not have access to the full body of evidence, the video, which basically amounts to a witness.

I would prefer a second (unrelated) witness...

I express a preference. You know, something one wants but doesn't necessarily require.

but what can I say, I like high standards of proof.

I also admit this is a high standard of proof; as opposed to making it a minimal. This is because I've been burnt before where someone has come forth and accused another, only for the real evidence to prove that the witness was mistaken or lying. This applies not just to personal conflicts, but also to major news stories.

The standard of multiple witnesses does not prevent false testimony, but like the option to shuffle your opponent's deck affects cheating, it both deters it in general and specifically can prevent certain instances. It is not a new standard, dating back to the ancient world, including Jewish and Christian tradition. So rather than need some new tech or something magical... I was suggesting a guideline used for thousands of years.

Most importantly... I am not TPCi. I did not challenge their decision to ban Gino if it was over the lap top incident. I also was under the impression that TPCi has both eye-witness testimony and video evidence, which is "good enough for me". I did express concern if the ban is not about the theft case.

So what is up with the ad hominem attacks where I lamented the fact that the video evidence that further ease my mind on the matter is not available? Attacks that make me out to be a deluded fool that thinks he needs to recreate a scene from CSI or from an even more fantastic work like Harry Potter before he can be convinced? That literally accuse me of being a friend of rapists and murderers because I want to use facts and evidence and not just emotion?

I am open to having my standards challenged... so long as it is with reason and not emotional appeals. In the United States Justice system, there are many known to have been falsely convicted but cleared years later, often when technology has reached a new level and evidence can be retested. There are also older techniques that are later challenged because with newer options, the "old evidence" then clashes with the "new evidence". Obvious examples would be DNA evidence, still relatively new but having cleared many in the last 20 or so years versus fingerprint technology, which has been used significantly longer but has been called into question.

 

[Vegeta ss4]

It is recognized that human memory is a fallible thing; as a quick reference you can find a New York Times article here. People can also willingly lie, or are you assuming Gino has had some sort of break with reality and that Gino himself believes he really did not take the laptop at the same time you are trusting testimony as honest and accurate that he did?

So... what did I actually say in my post.



I point out that I do not have access to the full body of evidence, the video, which basically amounts to a witness.



I express a preference. You know, something one wants but doesn't necessarily require.



I also admit this is a high standard of proof; as opposed to making it a minimal. This is because I've been burnt before where someone has come forth and accused another, only for the real evidence to prove that the witness was mistaken or lying. This applies not just to personal conflicts, but also to major news stories.

The standard of multiple witnesses does not prevent false testimony, but like the option to shuffle your opponent's deck affects cheating, it both deters it in general and specifically can prevent certain instances. It is not a new standard, dating back to the ancient world, including Jewish and Christian tradition. So rather than need some new tech or something magical... I was suggesting a guideline used for thousands of years.

Most importantly... I am not TPCi. I did not challenge their decision to ban Gino if it was over the lap top incident. I also was under the impression that TPCi has both eye-witness testimony and video evidence, which is "good enough for me". I did express concern if the ban is not about the theft case.

So what is up with the ad hominem attacks where I lamented the fact that the video evidence that further ease my mind on the matter is not available? Attacks that make me out to be a deluded fool that thinks he needs to recreate a scene from CSI or from an even more fantastic work like Harry Potter before he can be convinced? That literally accuse me of being a friend of rapists and murderers because I want to use facts and evidence and not just emotion?

I am open to having my standards challenged... so long as it is with reason and not emotional appeals. In the United States Justice system, there are many known to have been falsely convicted but cleared years later, often when technology has reached a new level and evidence can be retested. There are also older techniques that are later challenged because with newer options, the "old evidence" then clashes with the "new evidence". Obvious examples would be DNA evidence, still relatively new but having cleared many in the last 20 or so years versus fingerprint technology, which has been used significantly longer but has been called into question.

How did the date with Casey Anthony go?

Seriously, defending him now because a witness used his "memory" of an event is more than enough evidence when it compiles with other evidence.

 

[CaterpiesAreOP]

Cat's out of the bag!!

 

[r3skyline]

Interesting post Gino made earlier with some screenshots between convos of he and james.

 

[atomant]

Interesting post Gino made earlier with some screenshots between convos of he and james.

I just saw that, what was that about?

 

[CrystalEyeMonster]

Picture 1 of Gino.James



James good ; Inappropriate conversation 2

 

[Articjedi]

EDITED: You know what, I'll let James defend himself. I know what I saw today after talking to him at the LC.

 

[r3skyline]

EDITED: You know what, I'll let James defend himself. I know what I saw today after talking to him at the LC.

He's a good guy in person. That's all I know.

 

[Jaeger]

Thats an Exeggcutely good point

 

[Articjedi]

I talked to James today at the LC. I wasn't being negative about him in this instance.

 

[Otaku]

How did the date with Casey Anthony go?

Like I said, ad hominem. At least you did bother with a follow up so that I can request you read the comments in question correctly.

Seriously, defending him now because a witness used his "memory" of an event is more than enough evidence when it compiles with other evidence.

I don't think he was innocent. I thought I made that clear. I know my posts tend to get lengthy, but one of the ones being referenced wasn't "that" long. I expressed my desire (not demand) to see the video; I like to be extra cautious on these matters.

If I thought Gino was innocent... why would I state that it was "perhaps unfortunate that some good points were raised technically in defense of Gino." No really; what I said doesn't make sense in context if I thought Gino was innocent. If Gino was innocent, raising "good points technically in [his] defense" wouldn't be unfortunate at all.

Instead it means that some of the concerns over how matters of cheating are handled, expressed as a part of this thread, are still a concern to me. Why does pointing out that a single witness' testimony does not provide infallible proof cause a problem? I didn't state that I didn't believe the testimony... just that I wish I could have seen the security footage.

Do I also need to mention catching Gino with the stolen computer would also be good? Do I need to state other things I assumed didn't need to be highlighted, like that I consider theft "bad"?

TL;DR: I believe Gino did it, and if TPCi was able to get that footage, they had more than sufficient evidence to justify the banning. Still not sure about the procedure used in the DQ... and of course Gino's own claims over that matter are now cast in doubt.

 

[Jaeger]

Like I said, ad hominem. At least you did bother with a follow up so that I can request you read the comments in question correctly.



I expressed my desire (not demand) to see the video? Wow you guys must hate trade threads that express what cards someone would like.

If I thought Gino was innocent... why would I state that it was "perhaps unfortunate that some good points were raised technically in defense of Gino." If Gino was innocent, raising "good points technically in [his] defense" wouldn't be unfortunate at all. Instead it means that some of the concerns over how matters of cheating are handled, expressed as a part of this thread, are still a concern to me.

Why does pointing out that a single witness' testimony does not provide infallible proof cause a problem? I didn't state that I didn't believe the testimony... just that I wish I could have seen the security footage. Do I also need to mention catching Gino with the stolen computer would also be good? Do I need to state other things I assumed didn't need to be highlighted, like that I consider theft "bad"?

Gino stole the computer this is about as open and shut as you can get without a confession. Any court in the world would convict on this evidence. The only thing I don't like is Gino got a "warning" for stealing a computer and a ban for "looking at the bottom of his deck." "We'll give you a warning for robbing that bank, but throw the book at you for speeding away from the scene?" The ban should have been in response to the computer...

 

[Otaku]

Gino stole the computer this is about as open and shut as you can get without a confession. Any court in the world would convict on this evidence. The only thing I don't like is Gino got a "warning" for stealing a computer and a ban for "looking at the bottom of his deck." "We'll give you a warning for robbing that bank, but throw the book at you for speeding away from the scene?" The ban should have been in response to the computer...

Jaeger, you have more confidence in the legal system than I do. Otherwise... this is what I've been trying to state. Unfortunately, it looks like most are so busy being made at Gino (and hey, he certainly has done enough to justify such anger) that they are ignoring any other part of this.

 

[Abudoggie]

The only thing I don't like is Gino got a "warning" for stealing a computer and a ban for "looking at the bottom of his deck."

J... hate to nitpick. We have no idea "why" Gino was banned without TPCi stating it (The letter did not state a specific reason). Because of the timing, we are all assuming the DQ triggered it. A different guess is the ban could be in response to the manner in which he has been publicly conducting himself regarding the laptop incident after receiving probation for it. All of this was also occurring with the timing of the DQ. I'm sure the DQ didn't help the situation but they may have decided independently that the follow-up conduct itself was sufficient to warrant terminating the association of Gino with their brand. Not sure it matters though since end result is the same.