Philosophy or RS and whether mods or Admins should follow some rules themselves

[QUOTE=Poyol;67015]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beacon

Beacon,

The post wasn't aimed at you; but everyone in general.

If the ad hominem doesn't apply to you ignore it.

Jason

---

I wholehartedly agree

1. Can you explain how " Beacons' arrogant, nit picking and pedantic behaviour ..." is a reference to someone else?
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66970

2. Can you explain how a single line post "You, my fine pedantic friend, are an argumentative asshole." is not ad hominem directed at me?
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66967

3. Where in that thread but especially in relation to Little round Man did I personally attack anyone?

Since then i have received PM's from mods/admins saying they will support LRM above the truth.
In short I see this as valuing loyalty above honesty
Given RS was set up because scam.com valued loyalty to sponsors above honesty then I regard this "groupthink by admins" as a very serious issue much more serious than the unprovoked and unjustofied personal attacks on me.


On the wider note and more substantive issue addressed here:
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66959
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66963
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66942

Should or is RS not about broader issues than just saying "you decide"? I mean if we were to post "here is all the evidence we can find for the WWII Holocaust " it would be really silly to say "well we are not saying the WWII Holocaust happened ~ you decide" would be silly. Clearly there is a HUGH amount evidence suggesting it happened and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting scams are happening.

I am aware that we have to be sensitive about defaming anyone and of the extremes of "outing" people ( and I do think such extreme actions are in many cases wrong) but we have to be able to speak out and say "Banners Broker is a scam" and having admins say "well we dont really know it is a scam that is for people to decide" or " well it may be a scam but we dont really know who has the money so we cant do anything about them" " well it is a scam but it isnt for us to advocate any action by the police" is not fullfulling what I consider should be a role for RS.

What do other people think about this?

Here is more of my thinking from http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66962
Spelling and grammar changed by me

Quote:

---

I also want to bring up our main role as I view it and that is of awareness. I don't think any of us have law degrees so let's not pretend we are attorneys. Discussion is one thing but the mindless debating only to stroke ones ego is getting losing sight of the main focus and that is to identify Banners Broker as a SCAM and to point out individuals who are scamming. The courts can sort of the EXACT details. When people search for information, they need to see that there is something more than the lies and the propaganda that they are being told.

---

I disagree with the above but not on what is considered the "main role"
Let me first clarify that some of us do have legal experience and have studied law or been in enforcement or have contacts there and some I believe have law degrees. Other have accountancy, scientific, professional degrees and other qualifications as well as experience in a wide array of professional experiences in management media etc. Even if we didn't we still should have our opinion respected if it is supported by evidence.
I don't disagree about our "awareness" role.
I have a problem with assuming that is our ONLY role. We do have a role in alerting authorities and in lobbying them while we are not necessarily obliged to do it. We do have a role in advocating a particular action or in declaring something is a scam. This is a very sensitive issue however and we should be careful about defamation which is why "you decide" in addition to avoiding censorship also neatly avoids defamation.

I believe we also have an additional role in analysis. This happens to be my personal interest and an academic interest but I believe RS has a role in analysing both the criminology of the perpetrators and psychology of the victims. In addition we perform an analytical role in an jurisdictional sense. Traditionally legal discussion in academic journals about jurisprudence and the conflict of laws within a juristiction and between juristictions could and would drag on for years. Even though lawyers make up a major element of the political law makers, law makers rarely get involved in such arguments which are left to honorable jurists and senior civil servants . I think this process isnt sufficient in the internet age. We need a system whereby the people can discuss and respond to scams and make suggestion or advocate legal reform on an intrajuristictional basis.

One current system is the Eurpoean Union for example. One migjht think the EU offers a way for people elected to the European Parliament to mould such laws for the people. In fact EU law is extermey complicate and most of it is drafted by civil servants and introduced by the EU Commission or Council of Ministers. By "complicated" I mean it is filled with references to earlier regulations and amalgamates common and codified law. Many EU citizens never actually read an EU regulation and indeed even the politicians admit they didnt understant the constitution for which they were recommending people approve the reason being the constitution was a kind of overview which legally amalgamates all the prior European Treaties into a Single unit.
what Europeans need however is to know that a Ponzi operating in Denmark can be dealt with in Greece and the people arrested in Scotland. But it goes further than that. In the case of BB for example we need to be able to refer to court cases in US, India, Iceland, and a host of other countries. Operations dealing with this rarely occur and usually only in cases of international terrorism or pedophile rings but I submit they will need to occur more often for fraud.

Now here is my point: Realscam have a role to play in this and this should be part of our long term vision if not immediately part of our mission.

[QUOTE=Beacon;67091]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poyol

I wholehartedly agree

1. Can you explain how " Beacons' arrogant, nit picking and pedantic behaviour ..." is a reference to someone else?
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66970

2. Can you explain how a single line post "You, my fine pedantic friend, are an argumentative asshole." is not ad hominem directed at me?
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66967

3. Where in that thread but especially in relation to Little round Man did I personally attack anyone?

Since then i have received PM's from mods/admins saying they will support LRM above the truth.
In short I see this as valuing loyalty above honesty
Given RS was set up because scam.com valued loyalty to sponsors above honesty then I regard this "groupthink by admins" as a very serious issue much more serious than the unprovoked and unjustofied personal attacks on me.


On the wider note and more substantive issue addressed here:
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66959
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66963
http://www.realscam.com/f8/banners-b...html#post66942

Should or is RS not about broader issues than just saying "you decide"? I mean if we were to post "here is all the evidence we can find for the WWII Holocaust " it would be really silly to say "well we are not saying the WWII Holocaust happened ~ you decide" would be silly. Clearly there is a HUGH amount evidence suggesting it happened and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting scams are happening.

I am aware that we have to be sensitive about defaming anyone and of the extremes of "outing" people ( and I do think such extreme actions are in many cases wrong) but we have to be able to speak out and say "Banners Broker is a scam" and having admins say "well we dont really know it is a scam that is for people to decide" or " well it may be a scam but we dont really know who has the money so we cant do anything about them" " well it is a scam but it isnt for us to advocate any action by the police" is not fullfulling what I consider should be a role for RS.

What do other people think about this?

---

My quoted post was not aimed at you.
LRM's was aimed at you, mine was aimed at EVERYONE; as I had said.

Yes, you and I have exchanged messages but I have not said I will put loyalty above honesty; that, sir is a lie and I take issue with that.

The rest of your points are valid.

Beacon, thank you for starting this discussion in an appropriate forum.

I know you used the holocaust as a deliberately over the top example to make a rhetorical point. Let me address that. Under American law the owner of a website is responsible for what they say (write), they are not responsible for what other people write (within bounds). I, you or anyone other than the owner can say "Joe Blow is a lying, thieving *******" and again, within bounds Joe Blow couldn't win a lawsuit for defamation against the website owner. However, if I used my access to the control panel and added "Joe Blow is a lying, thieving *******" to the titles, forum headers or any other non user contributed portion of the software Joe's attorney could argue that the site's owner (or agent acting on their behalf) made that statement and liability could attach. Of course I wouldn't say that about Joe if I couldn't back it up so he might be well advised not to place himself in a situation where a Judge would be presented with all that information but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the non user contributed portions of this website are completely judgment neutral. Is it or isn't it, you get the point?

Let's proceed with a small confession. It's a more or less open secret around here that I have, let's call them emotional equilibrium issues. I am on medication, I have more good days than bad but I do have bad days. One thing I'm working on is to not let the bad days keep me from performing some of the more house keeping type tasks this place requires but one thing I don't do is post on the forum when it's a fight to keep my own demons at bay. This explains some of my periodic absences.

When you're ass deep in alligators it's hard to remember that you'd started out to drain the swamp.

I say the above to tell you that I'm a recovering drama addict. The worst days of my life are the ones when I can't seem to remember that almost all my problems are inside my own head. When I feel prone to being aggravated, as if by magic aggravation appears. Petty slights or social friction stops being politely forgotten and transform into Grand Opera. Only not good Opera, with orchestral arrangements and mythological themes but more like three hours of screaming two year olds arguing over who started it while the same episode of My Little Pony plays in the background on an endless loop.

The rational response, when ever I can empower myself to make it, is almost always just let it go. I'm not perfect and with the exception of one ex wife I've never met anyone who thought they were either. I try to make allowance for people and if that doesn't work, I ignore them. There's a lot more emotional economy in that than trying to convince others how important my drama is when I should be trying to convince myself the opposite.

Yea, LRM got snippy with you, not his proudest moment. If he abused his authority and sanctioned you unjustly I will personally whomp him with a knotted plow line. But you aren't saying he did that. You did say that you have PMs from us saying we'll support him above the truth. Please admit that that is your characterization of the PMs you have.

I value your participation and contributions to this forum and hope you'll feel welcome to continue making them. But we flat out need LRM. There's a fair amount of work that goes into running a site like this, quietly, competently and with no desire for fanfare or applause he does his share of that work. And most of mine.

We aren't covering for him or letting him run roughshod over our members. Because quite frankly he isn't. You got up his nose and he yours, it happens. But this isn't Grand Opera, or even good Opera. And I kinda hate My Little Pony.

Perhaps you would like Rainbow Brite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp9Vn3f7wsU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beacon

What do other people think about this?

---

Trust me when I say you don't wanna know what I think.......

[QUOTE=Poyol;67100]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beacon

Yes, you and I have exchanged messages but I have not said I will put loyalty above honesty; that, sir is a lie and I take issue with that.

---

I didn't say you Payol were the ONLY admin or moderator I had corresponded with and I drafted/posted the above remark BEFORE you had PM me saying you dinnt value loyalty above honesty. I dont think I need to refer to PMs but I did reply top you since then pointing out that I had posted to this thread and the very weakness in my claim was that your subsequent response by PM meant that you didn't value loyalty above honesty.

I was not therefore lying then. I wold be lying now if I continued to suggest you did value loyalty above honesty sinnce I already admitted to you personally that I believe you don't.

In short and to be absolutely I accept Payol does not value loyalty above honesty but when and if I did I was not lying because at that time I believed he did. I don't believe it now. My general point however stands even though it is not true in this particular case. I don't know how ALL the rest of the people who own/control RS think on this and I believe it is a dangerous mindset when those in power band together to defend something if they also know that thing is in error. But Ill freely admit I have my own bias. I am anti authoritarian. I believe those most to have power are those who don't want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlimDropper

Beacon, thank you for starting this discussion in an appropriate forum.

I know you used the holocaust as a deliberately over the top example to make a rhetorical point.

---

Sometimes in physics or mathematics one takes the extreme case since disproving it would disprove the principle. In moral cases the holocaust child abuse or terrorism for example are similar (although "terrorism" can be a tricky one every time the US for example redefine terrorism they seem to break their own rules by doing it)

Quote:

---

Let me address that. Under American law t... The point is that the non user contributed portions of this website are completely judgment neutral. Is it or isn't it, you get the point?

---

Thanks for the clarification on US law. I was not aware you were registered or operating in the US. Ironically, unlike scams, I never looked up Realscam in detail :)

Quote:

---

Let's proceed with a small confession. It's a more or less open secret around here that I have, let's call them emotional equilibrium issues. ... This explains some of my periodic absences.

---

I'm sorry to see that and I will keep it in mind in any further correspondence.
...

Quote:

---

The rational response, when ever I can empower myself to make it, is almost always just let it go.

---

I have similar psychological pathology to the one you describe but ironically I get like a doig with a bone who can't let it go. :)

Quote:

---

I'm not perfect and with the exception of one ex wife I've never met anyone who thought they were either.

---

Ironically I seem to be meeting your ex wife all over the place and she always appears different than last time.

Quote:

---

I try to make allowance for people and if that doesn't work, I ignore them. There's a lot more emotional economy in that than trying to convince others how important my drama is when I should be trying to convince myself the opposite.

---

This is probably something I should try more often.

Quote:

---

Yea, LRM got snippy with you, not his proudest moment. If he abused his authority and sanctioned you unjustly I will personally whomp him with a knotted plow line. But you aren't saying he did that.

---

No. He didn't ban me. But had he done so for the reasons he claimed he would have been wrong. Also mods/admins should be above ad hominem. I dont take any huge offence about the personal insults. It just does not look good for the image of RS. What is more important is whether people band together in a "groupthink" and defend the system above the truth. That is what I am more worried about.

Quote:

---

You did say that you have PMs from us saying we'll support him above the truth. Please admit that that is your characterization of the PMs you have.

---

Yes. that is the impression I got. Based on a point
A LRM had every right to ban me

But in a later PM it was put to me that that is not what was being stated. I don't like to discuss PMs in open discussion (otherwise what is the point of them) but I dont think the people sending them would object in what I now post. I certainly o What was later put to me was that
A . If LRM wanted to ban me LRM had every right to do so
BUT
B. If LRM did so this would not be the right thing to do

I admitted that the B completely undermined my "groupthink" argument. I have since posted this discussion saying so. Your additional response which is the same as B only adds to that counter argument. I haven't looked up a list of Mods and admins but given you seem to own the site or know who does I would have to say my "groupthink" argument of "loyalty above honesty" is in error.

Quote:

---

I value your participation and contributions to this forum and hope you'll feel welcome to continue making them. But we flat out need LRM. There's a fair amount of work that goes into running a site like this, quietly, competently and with no desire for fanfare or applause he does his share of that work. And most of mine.

---

This is where people like me can create problems but I hop also provide a solution.
the problem is when you say "we need LRM" you are making a statement like A above. Actually stronger than that you are stating "loyalty to people we need above honesty" . It is only when you later qualify it with B or with "If he abused his authority" that A isnt taken as absolute.

For the record. I personally find contributions of LRM ( outside of administrative work) as constructive and well thought out. So what? Who cares what I say? Well I only mention it in
relation to the point that I wont cloud "facts" with opinion and personal dislike. I don't like what he personally said about me and think it wasn't justified but so long as fair debate is allowed I don't have a huge problem with that. I don't expect him to like me and I am aware I can rub people up the wrong way. This is usually because I challenge people's views and beliefs and deal with things in a cold way.

Quote:

---

We aren't covering for him or letting him run roughshod over our members. Because quite frankly he isn't.

---

His personal attacks weren't warranted but as i said I'm prepared to let that go.
ther were accusations that I was being "passive aggressive" which is news to me. I was not out to get anyone although I may have been out to destroy their argument.
By far the most worrying element - to me - was my understand ( based on evidence) that RS was a groupthink/loyalty above honesty operation. I now freely admit that understanding was wrong ( based on more subsequent evidence).

In hindsight I should have dealt with it more by PM and left it a few days before jumping to conclusions. It probably wasn't assisted that there were a concurrent personal spats involving LRM and others in the same thread.

To get back to Philosophy I think if we a a resource for awareness/action it might be usefull to discuss a charter of what elements we value.
Also I would like to see in One Place as a sticky a list of
1. Information links
These could for example be links for where to check up icompanies in several juristictions
For example Isle of Man, Jersey, English, Irish, Bel;ize etc. Companies offices

2. Links to enforcement/regulation in various juristictions
e.g. Tax/treasury
Fraud offices of civil e.g. SEC and criminal authorities e.g. Police force

3. Links to legal sources
e.g. fraud and consumer protection laws in UK, EU,

4. A list of prominent fraudsters ( we also have threads on them) Court decisions on them and a list of politicians law firms or groups who advocate actions and legal reform ( we already have bits of this information in single threads).

Im not a professional in this field but the general outline of a syllabus for a training course in fraud detection might be useful.

The above might be in conflict with the philosophy of RS since it is setting it on a professional level and might be either competing with the professional interests of members of RS or requiring resources to update RS which go beyond the current budget. This in turn would pressure RS into a funding model that might have implications similar to what i began this thread about e.g. why RS was set up as distinct from other scam sites in thrall to financial sponsors.
Again what do people think?
Even Okosh .. I forgot to include the antipodes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beacon

4. A list of prominent fraudsters ( we also have threads on them) Court decisions on them and a list of politicians law firms or groups who advocate actions and legal reform ( we already have bits of this information in single threads).

---

I'm looking at working on something very similar to this, Beacon.
You'll see more soon.

Jason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poyol

I'm looking at working on something very similar to this, Beacon.
You'll see more soon.

Jason

---

I tried to start something like that here:
Scams - Links To Research - Scams

too much to keep up to date for one person, but maybe you can
get some ideas from the structure.

The SaltyDroid has a long-term plan to put a public-friendly site that includes that type of info.
Anyhow. Hopefully somebody will make it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poyol

I'm looking at working on something very similar to this, Beacon.
You'll see more soon.

Jason

---

well. two years later and where is the "something" you were working on?

Is he the same Jason busy convincing himself SRS is not a scam or someone stole his name?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beacon

well. two years later and where is the "something" you were working on?

---

Life got away with me.
I got busy - having a family tends to do that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poyol

Life got away with me.
I got busy - having a family tends to do that!

---

Bless you! Same issue here. This site is my baby, but I am pulled in so many directions.

Anyone who would like to volunteer here is welcome. Our heart is in warning and informing.

I will only speak for myself, but to put together a list of all the links to the regulatory agencies and keep it current is a full-time job. Agencies have a tendency to change their URL's but not notify anyone other than have it re-direct to their new URL when accessing the site for a period of time before it no longer re-directs to the new URL. It is a constant struggle we have at Eagle keeping all the links on our website working and going to the places they are supposed to go. It is not such a big problem with US agencies, at least at the Federal level, but many states change their URL's quite frequently it seems. Our problem is with the International links we try our best to keep current. It is a never ending battle and it is frustrating. Our links are there to help people who have been victims of these Ponzi's and it sucks when the URL's are broken, no longer work because they were changed and we didn't know it. The only way we find out is when someone tells us, which we greatly appreciate.

I am trying to find a full-time volunteer who does nothing but check every URL on our website, if not working find the URL that does work, and notify us of the new URL. It is tedious, boring, but a necessary evil. Any volunteers now that I have made this task so enticing and interesting that you just can't wait to start? Anyone? Waiting!