Bruno712
Banned User
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Location
- Boston, MA
First and foremost, I will address what appears to be Bryans major problem with my original thread. Sorry for misspelling your name.
I would like to thank everyone who responded (very intelligently and thoughtfully I might add) to my contribution. I wish I had the time to address the issues each of you expressed regarding my post. Oh, thats right, I do!
Clj7221, although it is true that a defendant can choose to waive his right to a jury trial and choose to have his case heard by a judge, I would argue that Interdigits, by posting in a public forum, in no way waived his right to a jury trial. On the contrary, he chose to post ad popolum and by doing so made this a jury matter. It is not the judge that chooses the method of adjudication but the accused. Wow, I am getting real lawyery here, LOL.
Grandmaster, the term used by a judge in his directions to a jury in a civil or tort case is preponderance of evidence, as opposed to the reasonable doubt BS that he gives in a criminal trial. But there must still be evidence. Hearsay is allowed more often in a tort case than a criminal case (wait until you see all the hearsay allowed in the Kobe case!), but only when substantiated by other prima fascia evidence.
To Bryan, Spearmaster, Ryan, all other portal website owners/managers, all casino owners, software owners and developers, and respected members of the gaming community (that about cover it?): My post was not meant to be taken personally. The names mentioned could have been interchanged with a hundred others on any given day, given all the bizarre events and conflicts that take place in this wild and wooly world of online gaming. It was not an attack on Casinomeister. It was not an attack on Intercasino. It was intended as a constructive piece of criticism directed at all sides of the issue. I believe that all those involved admit that there are problems with this business remaining status quo. It is a reactive environment to the extreme. I believe that it serves the good of the whole more to live in the solution rather than to live in the problem. I believe the online casino business took a big step in admitting they have problems by creating ECOGRA. Historically, though, any business or group that attempts self regulation is doomed to failure. I offer Major League Baseball, public utilities in the US prior to 1984 and any police department in this country pre Knapp as proof. Self regulation ultimately results in self interest, self promotion, cover ups, kick backs and self destruction. Therefore, I am challenging the business as a whole to prove its good intentions are not a mere crumb thrown to the starving throngs. Go the extra step. Go all the way to legitimacy and involve your life blood, the player, in your attempt to mainstream this potential gold mine.
And, finally to Dominique. I must, therefore conclude by both your defense of and complaint about your having to take part in mediation due to being a webmaster (Im assuming by your use of the first person that you are), that not one webmaster gets paid for the banners and ads I see on your websites. Otherwise, you would be merely complaining, as we all do, about the unpleasant aspects of doing our jobs. Input the appropriate players into the following scenario and see how your argument sounds. Exxon seeks out and pays a law firm to handle their legal and PR matters. Joe six-pack sues Exxon. Exxon, out of the kindness of their collective hearts, offers to pay for Joes attorney as long as it is an attorney that works for the same partnership that Exxon has retained for the last 60 years. Now, remember, Exxon sought out this law firm so they must be unbiased! As deep as I dig, the logic in that argument escapes me. For one thing the scenario I described is not only unethical but quite illegal. Webmasters, regardless of how loud you guys scream neutrality, get paid BY ONE SIDE ONLY to mediate a two sided matter. Your reactions shock me, to say the least. I am accusing you people of being nothing less than human beings! I do not doubt that your intention is to be as fair and as just as possible. And I mean that. But I have learned in my 30 odd years of litigation that the last place I would ever look for fairness and justice is in a court of law or at an arbitration hearing. The reason is that ultimately, the final decision is up to one person. One person cannot make an unbiased decision. Inherent in its oneness is the opinion of one!!!! And, if you dont think that the verdict of a jury is the direct result of the decisions made during the trial by the guy wearing the robes, you are naive to the extreme. Can you say OJ and Ito?
I would like to thank everyone who responded (very intelligently and thoughtfully I might add) to my contribution. I wish I had the time to address the issues each of you expressed regarding my post. Oh, thats right, I do!
Clj7221, although it is true that a defendant can choose to waive his right to a jury trial and choose to have his case heard by a judge, I would argue that Interdigits, by posting in a public forum, in no way waived his right to a jury trial. On the contrary, he chose to post ad popolum and by doing so made this a jury matter. It is not the judge that chooses the method of adjudication but the accused. Wow, I am getting real lawyery here, LOL.
Grandmaster, the term used by a judge in his directions to a jury in a civil or tort case is preponderance of evidence, as opposed to the reasonable doubt BS that he gives in a criminal trial. But there must still be evidence. Hearsay is allowed more often in a tort case than a criminal case (wait until you see all the hearsay allowed in the Kobe case!), but only when substantiated by other prima fascia evidence.
To Bryan, Spearmaster, Ryan, all other portal website owners/managers, all casino owners, software owners and developers, and respected members of the gaming community (that about cover it?): My post was not meant to be taken personally. The names mentioned could have been interchanged with a hundred others on any given day, given all the bizarre events and conflicts that take place in this wild and wooly world of online gaming. It was not an attack on Casinomeister. It was not an attack on Intercasino. It was intended as a constructive piece of criticism directed at all sides of the issue. I believe that all those involved admit that there are problems with this business remaining status quo. It is a reactive environment to the extreme. I believe that it serves the good of the whole more to live in the solution rather than to live in the problem. I believe the online casino business took a big step in admitting they have problems by creating ECOGRA. Historically, though, any business or group that attempts self regulation is doomed to failure. I offer Major League Baseball, public utilities in the US prior to 1984 and any police department in this country pre Knapp as proof. Self regulation ultimately results in self interest, self promotion, cover ups, kick backs and self destruction. Therefore, I am challenging the business as a whole to prove its good intentions are not a mere crumb thrown to the starving throngs. Go the extra step. Go all the way to legitimacy and involve your life blood, the player, in your attempt to mainstream this potential gold mine.
And, finally to Dominique. I must, therefore conclude by both your defense of and complaint about your having to take part in mediation due to being a webmaster (Im assuming by your use of the first person that you are), that not one webmaster gets paid for the banners and ads I see on your websites. Otherwise, you would be merely complaining, as we all do, about the unpleasant aspects of doing our jobs. Input the appropriate players into the following scenario and see how your argument sounds. Exxon seeks out and pays a law firm to handle their legal and PR matters. Joe six-pack sues Exxon. Exxon, out of the kindness of their collective hearts, offers to pay for Joes attorney as long as it is an attorney that works for the same partnership that Exxon has retained for the last 60 years. Now, remember, Exxon sought out this law firm so they must be unbiased! As deep as I dig, the logic in that argument escapes me. For one thing the scenario I described is not only unethical but quite illegal. Webmasters, regardless of how loud you guys scream neutrality, get paid BY ONE SIDE ONLY to mediate a two sided matter. Your reactions shock me, to say the least. I am accusing you people of being nothing less than human beings! I do not doubt that your intention is to be as fair and as just as possible. And I mean that. But I have learned in my 30 odd years of litigation that the last place I would ever look for fairness and justice is in a court of law or at an arbitration hearing. The reason is that ultimately, the final decision is up to one person. One person cannot make an unbiased decision. Inherent in its oneness is the opinion of one!!!! And, if you dont think that the verdict of a jury is the direct result of the decisions made during the trial by the guy wearing the robes, you are naive to the extreme. Can you say OJ and Ito?
I think that is what I was trying to get at in the other thread. And if I decide to rogue someone, it's done with a heavy heart because I know someone is getting screwed; either the player or operator. We all have mouths to feed.
.............p.s. meister, did you get my private message reply???
...Not at all.... 
