QUOTE (knasser @ May 30 2010, 08:05 PM)
What do you mean "I don't seem to have a problem in other threads" ? Must I monitor all threads on Dumpshock to ensure that I even-handedly make comments in all threads instead of merely the ones I am aware of?
read it line by line, then and observe that it has absolutely nothing to do with your posting or not posting in other threads. i will restate: you don't have problems with moderators having and expressing opinions in other threads, right? if a moderator has an opinion about technomancers being overpowered or underpowered or of an appropriate power level, you don't tell them they should back off on moderating threads about the relative power level of technomancers, right? why? presumably because the moderators are able to form an opinion and express that opinion without allowing it to interfere with their duties as moderators on a regular basis, because it has not been a problem to date. the moderators are apparently able to do a pretty good job of moderating themselves *everywhere else* on these boards. i don't think it's unreasonable to trust them to be capable of doing exactly what they already do, every day, unless we have some indication that there is an actual problem. every moderator is going to have an opinion about every thread on every subject in dumpshock. if they only moderate threads where they have no opinion whatsoever, then we're going to have completely unmoderated forums, because even "i don't really feel strongly about it one way or another" is an opinion, and yet while i'm sure there are plenty of topics where a given moderator looks at it and says "this isn't really important" or "i don't agree with <other poster> on this issue", we don't appear to have an awful lot of threads locked just because it's not relevant to that specific mod, and we don't appear to have an awful lot of people getting banned or issued warnings for having a different opinion than a moderator. we already have pages upon pages of threads that show pretty clearly how the moderating team handles themselves in situations where they have an opinion act, and i don't see anything in those many pages of evidence to give me concern one way or another in the matter.
QUOTE (Fuchs @ May 31 2010, 02:27 AM)
That is indeed true. Now, without calling whatever co-mingling went down at CGL "theft", if someone stole half a million from the needy, and then claimed that he should not go to prison because he might not be able to pay back the victims otherwise, but had a house worth 500K, should one follow that line of reasoning? If not, why should one then act is if the only way for the freelancers to get paid is to support Loren?
Even if only a tenth of the draws LLC made from CGL are not justified that should be enough money to cover all open freelancer payments. And his house is not going to poof, so he has assets to cover that.
because the freelancers aren't the only ones harmed by the co-mingling... for example, there are the employees of CGL who we know to have worked for reduced or even no pay, there are other members of IMR who have also lost their investments, and any other debtors CGL may have, like banks, or lawyers who would be involved in the legal dispute that would ensue... and who would all be entitled to first shot at any money gained from the suit before the freelancers. because the house is more likely to sit on the housing market and rot than it is to cover his debts any time in the near future. because legal action resulting in the house being taken from the colemans and sold to pay their debts is not by any means a sure thing.
this isn't some magical system where you point at a house, wave your wand, and it turns into a pile of cash that mails itself out to the freelancers. trying to simplify it to that level won't make it so.
the key here is to remember that there's all kinds of stuff that WE DON'T KNOW. how much money DOES CGL owe to it's various debtors? we don't know. what exactly is it about loren l coleman's presence that randall bills feels is the best chance for CGL to recover and be able to pay it's debtors? we don't know. heck, how much exactly did loren l coleman co-mingle? again, we don't even know that. there are huge gaping holes in what we know.
a lot of people are acting on incomplete information and making moral judgements of people who they haven't met, who's situation they don't understand, and are doing so based on little more than rumors and hearsay. a lot of people are screaming for revenge heedless of what that does to others who are involved in the situation who have not done anything wrong.
if a police officer chooses not to shoot someone because that person has a hostage, even though that person is clearly a threat to the well-being of others and might even be a candidate for getting shot if they didn't have a hostage at that time (say, for example, if the hostage was beyond their reach to harm at that time), i doubt there's anyone here who would accuse the police officer of committing an injustice. is loren l coleman holding things hostage to keep himself from facing the music? i don't know. you don't know. none of us know. like i said, we're drastically uninformed. certainly, it isn't on the level of a person with a gun to a hostage's head, since the action won't directly kill anyone (and isn't particularly likely to indirectly kill anyone either). but one way or another, what comes out of this could very well decide the financial futures of a lot of people, and only one of those people is named loren l coleman.
as for buying the manuscripts, well, that's another place we get into something ugly. much of the material in question isn't manuscripts, it's actually already-printed books that have already been sold to the public. the new company, if any, may or may not want to touch that potential legal landmine with a 10 foot pole.
there's a saying that i'm sure many of you have heard before. it goes something along the lines of "walk a mile in another man's shoes before you make any judgements of him." i just find it odd that so many of you would likely agree with that concept if you were asked about it, and yet are so quick to judge the actions of others without complete information.
as has also been pointed out, someone once upon a time thought the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" was a pretty good way of handling things, and again, i bet a lot of you would agree with that. except, you know, it's apparently more convenient to just start condemning people based on your opinion.
certainly, loren l coleman may have stolen a lot of money (and in fact, it looks really likely that he did). perhaps randall bills really is his partner in crime, perhaps not. perhaps sandstorm really was formed in a bitter attempt by angry employees to make life hard for CGL (in my opinion, it seems unlikely, but again, we don't really have any proof one way or another). perhaps Jason Hardy is, as he has been accused, trying to get himself into a better position to transfer to a new company when CGL collapses. but in all cases, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" should still apply, because while it has it's flaws, "guilty until proven innocent" is much much worse.