Hosts Only

You wish!

Just had to make one last stop here on the way to the sheets.

Goodnight all! :asleep: :asleep: :asleep:

Night Terry :wink:

Question: With people who are banned, will they be banned from just the three threads we're talking about or from all the CC threads?

I would assume the three threads.

I don't know. If we had an old Jake like character show up just to F with people in all the threads, wouldn't they be banned throughout?

I suppose that would be an extreme case.

An initial warning would be issued followed up with banning.

Yuppers

1 vote not counted and not place yet.

2 votes no.

I know I don't have a say officially in this, but I just wanted to say some things. I know there are people that are opposed to having Nick banned, and that's fine. I notice that a lot of the opposition seems to be coming from a small, vocal group of friends. I just hope that in the future, that we as moderators can keep an eye out for those people who may be in the minority and who may not be as vocal, to have their concerns heard and take them seriously.

I don't know that I can offer any insight into what to do as far as letting Nick back in. I guess my feeling is that he should be let back in, because there are things in place to keep harassment and abuse in check, and it will help bring more peace to this place. My opinion on that is tempered though. Long ago, before Coco and I were even together, I've been trying to tell Nick to get help. Others here have been trying to tell him that. And yet it just doesn't seem to be heard. He still is denying that he did anything, even in the face of proof that he was behind it all. I know there have been places where he still maintains his innocence, and I will do my best to hold back my thoughts about things. I can't promise that I won't feel that I have to respond to personal attacks on myself. I will do my best though, to help promote more peace and help this place heal.

I'm sorry that this all had to come to this point. We've all had to deal with crap, relationships have been strained and fracture, the community as a whole has been hurt. I will try to do what I can to help with rebuilding it in a sense, because I believe in people in it and I believe in what brought us together. Through it all I have gotten something far better than I could ever imagine. That's what makes it easier to deal with. I'll go on as long as I can.

:smile:

tmk..thats the best thing I've read in 2 days...

thanks...

Nice TMK

Here's what we were planning on sending Nick

Due to a recent vote by the Cooler Crew moderators, you have been allowed to post within the Cooler Crew folders once again. The decision to vote once again was because of some recent changes within the forums. Please keep in mind that this decision does not reflect any opinion regarding guilty/innocence of any outside cases.

Thoughts?

First and foremost I think we need to be here for ourselves. We need to stick together and support each other, because of the situation we've been put in and what we've had to deal with. The hunt is coming up. It is our joy. Let's be able to enjoy this, and the company of each other. Be here for each other, so we can be there and help the others and this community.

And thank you Kitch.

I just hope that in the future, that we as moderators can keep an eye out for those people who may be in the minority and who may not be as vocal, to have their concerns heard and take them seriously.

I wonder if that post from L4V isn't all that bad to address many things such as this?

well, i guess my take on the matter is looking at it from this point of view. you own a house. someone breaks in, cleans you out, and somehow manages to get caught. during the time that person is serving their sentence, you decide to move out of the neighborhood. do we as a society let the guy out of jail because the victim moved?

Due to a recent vote by the Cooler Crew moderators, you have been allowed to post within the Cooler Crew folders once again. The decision to vote once again was because of some recent changes within the forums. This decision does not reflect any opinion regarding guilt or innocence.

I tweaked that just a titch.

TMK - Take the high road. Don't let anything he says get to you. Participating in any sort of conversation about this whole incident is not worth getting into with him.

My thought reversal has nothing to do with coco's presents or not.

With the scenario that you give, I look at it like this.

A guy robs A house. He's put into jail without any clear laws governing the robbery charge. Although, most think he's guilty of A crime, should he still be sentenced? And while the sentence is still in question, some new safeguards and laws are passed to help avoid any confusion in the future.

What if there were no set laws in place saying the break in was illegal and the crook was tossed in jail because people just thought it was the right thing to do at the time?

:sheepish:

oh wait... CM already said that..

I know. It's just hard to take the high road on this after all that he's done. It's also hard to let him say stuff and spread lies about your character. I guess to the people that matter most, they realize the true stuff.

I see us not having any problem banning him if he baits you TMK. What he does outside these threads is a different story. You might just need to avoid them because I know it would be way hard for me to listen to crap that might not be true.

TMK I don't envy you anymore then I envy any one of the Mods having to deal with this entire situation.

it sucks all around.

If he baits you, TMK, I'll be voting to ban him again.

Just be sure to not take the bait. We will handle that as moderators if it occurs.

I know you guys are arguing about how you perceive things. Just make it easy. Yeah, there were no set standards in place that we can refer to. There are people who are arguing that there are certain unwritten standards that we should hold people accounted to, that some things are common sense. But what is common sense and what is moral or immoral can't really be defined or agreed upon by a group of people as easily because of the diversity of opinions. There are things in place to help prevent what happened before. I really don't think someting like this will happen again, because I don't know that another situation will come up like this. The people who dissent have been heard, and we know where they stand. We can watch him just like anyone else. He can be a part of the community again, he will just have to live by the standards.

And he will be warned. If he continues, it's his decision and our hands are washed of it. It's right there in the rules.

Easy enough.

LEts send this message to him, open the door and be done with this.

We have a hunt to get ready for.

It looks like a majority of us are here right now. All in favor say aye

Aye

Aye

Recuse!

Aye

nay.

but that's just me.

No, ares, this is for the verbiage for the PM that's going to be sent to Nick. Any changes you'd like to see be made?

go ahead and send it. the only change i'd make to it would be to reverse the message :smile:

Ha - OK

Aye

So he has keys again?

yup

content.

thx asked me to drop down the gambling part of the header...

I've look at the laws...I gotta agree at this point..

I'm looking deeper into it now...

gambling? huh?

Private, social bets

It's sometimes difficult to distinguish the difference between a "private, social bet" and illegal gambling. The best way to make the distinction is to look at the intention of the law.

Minnesota law* makes any "bet" illegal. A "bet" is defined as "a bargain whereby the parties mutually agree to a gain or loss by one to the other of specified money, property or benefit dependent upon chance, although the chance is accompanied by some element of skill." According to this definition, any card game where the participants pay to play, and have a chance to win money, would constitute a "bet" and, therefore, be illegal gambling.

However, the criminal gambling statute creates an exception for "a private, social bet." The important thing to remember about a private social bet is that it cannot be part of "organized, commercialized, or systematic gambling." The owner of the location of the social bet cannot derive any profit from the bet, organize regular occasions for such bets, or advertise their occurrence. Potentially, any gambling that occurs in a business establishment could constitute illegal gambling because the owner of the establishment derives the indirect benefit of increased patronage.

It appears that the law was intended to exclude from prosecution such events as penny-ante card games among friends in one's home, small spontaneous wagers between friends, and other spur-of-the-moment private transactions. Once those wagers occur on a regular basis at a business establishment, it is difficult to characterize them as "social bets," and the location of the event runs a substantial risk of violating the law.

I'm now confused.

What gambling?

where was that in the header?

Clue Master, "2006 St. Paul Winter Carnival Medallion Hunt" #1407, 4 Jan 2006 7:00 am

There will be a park guess lottery conducted for those interested. $5 a guess. Prize amount determined by number of entries submitted. You must be present to guess or designate a stand-in.

No profit is made - it's an equal payout