|
Quote:
|
|
Wouldn't you wanna know the person's name so if you were in said KQ, you could keep an eye on them and stop them if necessary? Because that's a good 30 minutes right there they can easily waste by being jerks. You could either just save yourself wasting 30 minutes or more if that person is there, cause you know what they're notorious for.
|
But the thing is, I could most likely figure it out in two minutes of being with that person in the KQ. Having their name earlier would really only provide me with saving a few minutes. There are other examples of a person being 'clearly' bad, but views on what's bad and what's okay is subjective too. It really boils down to how many people are interested in knowing names, and how many people aren't. It's important people consider everything in making their decision though. It's hard to justify the real con's and the real pro's, and that's what we're doing at the moment. I'm sorry to walk all over your argument like that, but I am against naming individuals in a section devoted to rant. As for cases where naming was censored outside the All the Rage forums, I don't know about how just they are. I think that should be considered too.
I'd also like to remind everyone of
Blaaaaaaaaah's post (paragraph four), which provides an example of how screenshots can potentially mislead. You can't parade them as solid evidence if there is potential for them to be misused.
Hessah's mention of Falcomist's screenshots and the "real" story are different in their nature completely. The screenshots singles out Falcomist as the guilty, word for word says he isn't the only culprit.
What I'm trying to say is that screenshots are still subjective evidence in a sense, as they can be taken out of context, much like word of mouth. Whilst it is harder to remove them from their context compared to verbal appeals, it is still possible. We shouldn't post names of people if there is a chance that they are being unfairly judged.
THOUGH there are cases where multiple screenshots will provide enough evidence (scammer, KQ ruiners, PVP abusers), there is still another context of interest.
In the case of KQ and PVP abusers, if it's their first infringement, should they be forever judged for it? How severe is KQ ruining, scamming, PVP abusing to all of us as individuals? I don't find scamming a serious issue, people put themselves in these situations from their own cause (greed, desperation, mislaid trust).
KQ ruining can also be mislead. I've suicided KQ's to meet a friend earlier. Some may argue that that is a poor justification of ruining a KQ, but put yourself in my shoes, in my real life and I ask would you have done the same?
PVP ruining has another side to it too. I've seen people killing relentlessly in there, making it perhaps no fun. But how can we call that bad when the PVP zone really has no properly established, properly enforced rules? Can we call the rules people create for themselves law? If someone were to come into the battlegrounds for example - a good example of PVP - and claim a "room" by killing other people, how many would argue it was justified? How many would argue it wasn't? I believe a thread in all the rage was made specifically for this debate, and the verdict was split in the middle.
In my opinion, even the most prime examples of 'crimes' against the community have two sides to them, both possibly as just as the other.
Whilst my above examples are not strong ones, that is purely the point. There will be
times where people will provide screenshots as evidence, provide their side of the story and leave us to judge. Is it adequate evidence to turn their claims into
real fact though? I don't believe it is. Screenshots can prove just as subjective as written statement. Either can be taken out of context, and it's why I believe allowing the naming of names' can potentially lead to misaccusations that outweigh the benefits of freedom of speech.