Originally posted by focus4chumps
for someone who cries a lot and reports people for trolling, you sure troll a lot. oh that's right i'm on ignore because you're emotionally fragile. whiney hypocrite. baby
I report people for spamming. There is a difference. A retard like yourself would not know the difference.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Neither of those is actually proof, the first is an unsupported claim and the second is speculation.
That's not how proof works in a court of law. His claim is proof enough and could be submitted to a jury (which is what we are functioning as). In fact, that claim would be central to his case (that he did not post it).
Both pieces would be proof in a court of law but the second piece, which would be used to setup the character of the individual to prove he did not make the post (or perform the action) is almost enough, alone, to get an acquittal. 🙂
I would like to add that this is exactly what I went to school for and I got to work on a few cases as part of the degree program (digital forensics).
Let's pretend we cannot get a subpoena issued (or acted upon in a timely manner...which is likely considering Raz's flakiness) to audit the KMC Forum server records. We are now stuck with Quan's behavior and the functions of the board to prove whether he did or did not make that post.
We've proven that his claim can be true (that a mod can edit a post and it does not show up if it is edited within 1 KMC minute of posting). We've can also prove his behavior has never included the set of the content of the post in question.
To further cement Quan's case, we can also cite evidence of Quan's general disfavor with the mods to create a further case for moderator sabotage rather than a post by Quan.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
all he has is the possibility that a mod could have edited his post within 2 minutes,
No, 1 minute. A very narrow window.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
and also that quan immediately chose to accept and disregard it. even though it was quoted and addressed minutes later, he proceeded to ignore it.
He's already stated why: he knows it was edited by a mod and knows which mod did it. Reporting his post to the mods (himself) is not going to do anything for his case because he does not sit in high favor with the mods.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
since this is not a court of law, your miniscule "probable doubt" angle will only work with the other 3 people here wearing your same buddy-blinders.
Actually, that's not how the use of digital forensics in a court of law works. The prosecutor MUST prove that it was DEFINITELY Quan, beyond a shadow of a doubt. People have gotten off on cases where they DEFINITELY committed the crime but because of some stupid minor detail, they got off. Digital forensics is much more difficult to prove in a court of law because the standard for proof is a lot higher for digital forensics.
Even IF you prove, with 100% certainty, that a person definitely committed the digital crime...those pieces of shit can STILL get off. To give you an example of a case I worked on:
This pervert and harasser was harassing this woman. She got a restraining order against him. He didn't violate the restraining order...physically. But he sent her sexually explicit e-mails and harassing e-mails AFTER the restraining order was put in place. It was our job to prove that he sent those e-mails. We did. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Our program director was the one that was the "expert witness" in the court that testified that we definitely narrowed it down to just that dude's computer as the originator of the e-mails (the idiot wasn't very smart...he didn't proxy up or encrypt shit...so it was super easy to pin the guilt on him). The result of the case? Acquitted. Why? Because the Jury did not understand the technical reasons for why it was definitely him and bought into the "reasonable doubt" that was it was more probable that it was someone else and not the defendant.
That case still pisses me off, to this day. Juries are stupid. It should be a jury of computer experts and psychologists rather than a jury of peers.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
it's as you hinted at: all that matters here is what is generally considered to be 'in character' for quan.
That's fair and I appreciate you being objective about it.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
[1]-copying the lines of other people because of complete lack of creativity[2] -failing at said lines because he lacks understanding of a particular mode of humor. [it really does sound like something I, f@gtard, nemebro, imp, and backfire would say among many others.]
[3] -deflecting/ignoring when called on his humiliation
[4] -constant lying
[5] -persistant ambiguously homoerotic invites to skype.
I would say some of those are true speculative proposals. To address the issues, in order (I numbered them):
1. He definitely copies people's lines. He went to town with "mangina" after I used it once. I don't mind that, at all, but others do.
2. I don't agree, here: he he posted that, he definitely understands yours, Backfire's, and Impediment's brand of humor...that was pretty spot on and...well...funny.
3. I would chock it up to typical MvF posting style to deflect and ignore when people call you out in these versus debates. That's not something specific to Quan but, rather, a symptom of this cesspool. It doesn't fit well to make the case that Quan posted that stuff because Quan is neither humliated nor is this a "versus forum" argument. Other than the context of this point, I think you are correct.
4. I have not seen him caught in very many lies. And the lies he was caught in could also be chocked up to him rooster-strutting rather than malicious lies (such as saying he won 5 Battle Zone debates when he won none). He is definitely not a pathological liar and he is guilty of hyperbole, at worst.
5. People add that homosexual stuff to the Skype invites and Quan has explained why he invites people to those: because people seem to calm down and cool their jets after having a face-to-face discussion. I find that, generally, to be true, as well.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
I would abandon this character-based defense of your client if I were you. just plea 'temp insanity'. your only hope to save your buddyfriend.
I recommend you be appointed as the prosecutor if this turns official. I'll be the defense. Doesn't seem like anyone else is up to the task of intelligent dialogue regarding this situation. 👆
Marius can be the judge. He has been very impartial throughout our conversation while not seemingly taking any sides.
You guys want to do this? Make a thread and select a jury for this? 🙂
Or should we just wait for Impediment to admit it? 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, 1 minute. A very narrow window.He's already stated why: he knows it was edited by a mod and knows which mod did it. Reporting his post to the mods (himself) is not going to do anything for his case because he does not sit in high favor with the mods.
Actually, that's not how the use of digital forensics in a court of law works. The prosecutor MUST prove that it was DEFINITELY Quan, beyond a shadow of a doubt. People have gotten off on cases where they DEFINITELY committed the crime but because of some stupid minor detail, they got off. Digital forensics is much more difficult to prove in a court of law because the standard for proof is a lot higher for digital forensics.
Even IF you prove, with 100% certainty, that a person definitely committed the digital crime...those pieces of shit can STILL get off. To give you an example of a case I worked on:
This pervert and harasser was harassing this woman. She got a restraining order against him. He didn't violate the restraining order...physically. But he sent her sexually explicit e-mails and harassing e-mails AFTER the restraining order was put in place. It was our job to prove that he sent those e-mails. We did. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Our program director was the one that was the "expert witness" in the court that testified that we definitely narrowed it down to just that dude's computer as the originator of the e-mails (the idiot wasn't very smart...he didn't proxy up or encrypt shit...so it was super easy to pin the guilt on him). The result of the case? Acquitted. Why? Because the Jury did not understand the technical reasons for why it was definitely him and bought into the "reasonable doubt" that was it was more probable that it was someone else and not the defendant.
That case still pisses me off, to this day. Juries are stupid. It should be a jury of computer experts and psychologists rather than a jury of peers.
That's fair and I appreciate you being objective about it.
I would say some of those are true speculative proposals. To address the issues, in order (I numbered them):
1. He definitely copies people's lines. He went to town with "mangina" after I used it once. I don't mind that, at all, but others do.
2. I don't agree, here: he he posted that, he definitely understands yours, Backfire's, and Impediment's brand of humor...that was pretty spot on and...well...funny.
3. I would chock it up to typical MvF posting style to deflect and ignore when people call you out in these versus debates. That's not something specific to Quan but, rather, a symptom of this cesspool. It doesn't fit well to make the case that Quan posted that stuff because Quan is neither humliated nor is this a "versus forum" argument. Other than the context of this point, I think you are correct.
4. I have not seen him caught in very many lies. And the lies he was caught in could also be chocked up to him rooster-strutting rather than malicious lies (such as saying he won 5 Battle Zone debates when he won none). He is definitely not a pathological liar and he is guilty of hyperbole, at worst.
5. People add that homosexual stuff to the Skype invites and Quan has explained why he invites people to those: because people seem to calm down and cool their jets after having a face-to-face discussion. I find that, generally, to be true, as well.
I recommend you be appointed as the prosecutor if this turns official. I'll be the defense. Doesn't seem like anyone else is up to the task of intelligent dialogue regarding this situation. 👆
Marius can be the judge. He has been very impartial throughout our conversation while not seemingly taking any sides.
You guys want to do this? Make a thread and select a jury for this? 🙂
Or should we just wait for Impediment to admit it? 😆
I made a thread for this minutes before you posted.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's good that none of us have to go by rules of a court of law in forming our opinions. Neither in what we accept as evidence, nor in what percentage of likelihood convinces us.
That's perfectly okay to form an opinion outside a court of law.
But the Courts exist to provide an official ruling on situations. It's just a processional order to assessing cases like these and I like it much better than the back and forth of a forum. 🙂
This situation does not constitute criminal conduct (unless Robtard wanted to make a case that he is being cyberbullied by Quanchi...which could be done due to all the personal attacks Robtard has "suffered" at the hands of Quanchi but that case would be quickly thrown out because of Robtard's reciprocal behavior...also, I don't think either of them live in a state that has cyber-bullying laws and the KMC server is not hosted in one of those states so no cyber-bullying case could be made).
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you judge the length of that post, it is very likely that I started making my post long before you made that thread. So I would not have known about your post until after I submitted that post.
I wasn't even worried about that aspect. just wanted to let people know there is a central thread for the discussion if they'd like to use it.
I set the thread up like crap tho and didn't even have the quote.
oh well. it will be closed soon. I'm sure of it
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how proof works in a court of law. His claim is proof enough and could be submitted to a jury (which is what we are functioning as). In fact, that claim would be central to his case (that he did not post it).Both pieces would be proof in a court of law but the second piece, which would be used to setup the character of the individual to prove he did not make the post (or perform the action) is almost enough, alone, to get an acquittal. 🙂
I would like to add that this is exactly what I went to school for and I got to work on a few cases as part of the degree program (digital forensics).
Let's pretend we cannot get a subpoena issued (or acted upon in a timely manner...which is likely considering Raz's flakiness) to audit the KMC Forum server records. We are now stuck with Quan's behavior and the functions of the board to prove whether he did or did not make that post.
We've proven that his claim can be true (that a mod can edit a post and it does not show up if it is edited within 1 KMC minute of posting). We've can also prove his behavior has never included the set of the content of the post in question.
To further cement Quan's case, we can also cite evidence of Quan's general disfavor with the mods to create a further case for moderator sabotage rather than a post by Quan.
quan's claim isn't enough to prove someone edited his post.