Would the company be acting morally though? Kant would say no.

That seems debatable..

How well an idea is socially accepted has no direct implications on it's moral worth (i.e.: slavery).

@Bakes - aren't they just doing what you did with the 50k - reverse freeroll someone and then try and weasel their way out of it because they have better rep than the other person?

Hard to see how anyone can argue with this, but nvgtards gonna nvgtard.

Also: Bakes, if you're really leaving, can I have your avatar?

funny im even sticking up for this sex offender, i want to know how far this goes does it extend to other crimes perhaps having a criminal record is against the rules which means chino should never have played in the epic poker league let alone win it

its nothing new i know but a bit of a refresh on mr Rheem

"Turns out his two cases of 'Burglary on an unoccupied structural conveyance' - police talk - means he broke into cars and stole stuff. They also got him with marijuana.
"It happened eight years ago, when Rheem was 20, and while it's a real pisser to have your car broken into - if you haven't experienced it, good for you (I've been hit at least three times) - I'd suggest this post be the end of it. He did his [four months'] time."

You keep mentioning this "incident" over and over as evidence and support for the leagues decision to disqualify DeVita. What are the details of this incident? Who reported it? Who witnessed it? Did the EPL conduct a formal inquiry into the "infraction?" Was there a trial or a conviction? What gives this "incident" you keep mentioning any credibility and bearing on his ability to compete in the league in any way what-so ever?


I heard another league member was drunk in a club one night and inappropriately touched a female's buttocks. She was extremely offended. He was neither arrested not charged but might have been slapped. This was after the league began. Ban him for this infraction? What if he is part of the cool crowd? Should I wait until he wins to report him?

I think "blasting your integrity" is a bit melodramatic. Plus, as I said in the post you didn't quote, Mike was referring to the EPL card holders who didn't speak up. Since you in fact did, not only does he not have a problem with you he'd most likely "laud" you for it.

Bakes, you seriously need to chill dude. He wasn't calling you out personally yet you are taking it as a personal attack and coming off like a child throwing a tantrum.

Oh, wait, he wasn't convicted? Wait... does that mean he's not guilty? ****, it does. Brilliant. Being judgemental doesn't mean everyone's guilty of everything they're suspected of. Even if he was it shouldn't actually matter unless he's actively serving a prison term. Unless, of course, they're afraid he might suddenly rape a child at the table.

This point applies in general to such a question, but for rhetorical purposes let's focus on "a murderer." Does that mean..

a1) Someone currently disposed to perform acts of legally unjustified killing;
a2) Someone currently accused by legal authorities of such a crime;
a3) Someone who was convicted, within the last year or so, of first degree murder (willful premeditated killing).
a4) Someone who was convicted thirty-five years ago of voluntary manslaughter (crime of passion without premeditation), has been accused of nothing since, and is currently a professor of medieval studies at an Ivy League university.

The list could of course be expanded. The point is that such labels are typically more useful in fiction than they are in making decisions about interactions with people.

My comment was regarding your first post above. (The bolded)

And furthermore after being convicted of being a pedo he lucked out and got off on a technicality in 2008.

So yea, I think there's pretty good evidence that this scum has not been rehabilitated thus a great reason for making him and others like him have to register or be registered as a pedo sex offender.

That being said and in context with the OP I think he, at the very least, should get the 20K, since they let him play the satellite.

yeah they just robbed him of 20k plain and simple. disgusting effort from the organizers



Shady enough banning some people with criminal history but not others, has the organizers playing judge jury and god, the lines here are so blurry and unethical its a joke, even without the straight up robbery.

Epic.

+1

Ah! I didn't know he was actually guilty as charged in 2008. I thought that the fact that the alleged victim was unwilling to testify COULD JUST POSSIBLY have been due to DiVita's not being guilty. I even imagined (as I previously posted ITT) possibilities of his being a Registered Sex Offender inciting a parent to make charges going way beyond the facts. But I'm so naive. We are really fortunate to have people with valuable inside information here on 2+2.

The technicality being "not actually having a case against someone".

Technically, under dozens of vague US laws and statutes...
At Federal and State levels...
Plus 100 other countries and, of course, "international law"...
I'll bet that the MAJORITY of 2+2 posters...
Could someday find themselves "Registered Sex Offenders".

I'm amused by individuals that "protest too much".

Lets leave the morality debates for the brainiacs over at Harvard:

link: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER

Thank you sir.

In 2008 they obtained a warrant to search his home which revealed some evidence which supported their case against the pedo but without the child's testimony they couldn't move forward.

I guess we have some very understanding ppl ITT or perhaps some with some very significant skeletons in their own closets. Which ever the case I'm not going to argue with pedo pacifists. Pretty gross, really....

So if the police raid my house and find a gun, that clearly is evidence supporting me being a murderer right?

What's pretty gross is that you want to form a lynch mob for someone who was innocent of the charges. That's how our laws work, maybe it would be better if you went and lived in Libya instead, since you seem to prefer their rule of law which is guilty once suspected, no appeal.

While I agree with you, innocent is not the right word.

Moving off track here. A debate on the meaning of guilt or innocence, the state of the CJ system, or how people should be treated if you believe they are guilty even though they were never tried or convicted is outside the scope of this thread.

Its important to establish just why this guy was prevented entry into the EPL. Was it his 20yo conviction, the charges levied 3 years ago, or this alleged incident recently where, according to ZJ, he insulted an EPL members wife. Several of us in this thread believe that the third is actually the most important reason. We believe that this EPL community is an "in-crowd" and that while cheaters and thieves will be allowed to play, someone that insulted someone's wife can be barred with the excuse of a 20yo conviction.

I happen to believe that ZJ is an honest and good guy, but cheating at cards 5 years ago is a much more relevant reason to bar someone from a poker tourney than a 20yo conviction. Even if that conviction was for rape, murder, or child molestation.

All valid, but since there's no official explanation for why he was expelled (I'm sorry - why he "voluntarily withdrew") it's easy to get drawn off into general theoretical discussions about which crimes are worse and whether or not a charge that was dropped (but why was it dropped? lack of evidence, reluctant victim?) should be considered, and all that could derail.

Normally derails aren't that big a deal in a lot of threads but given the seriousness of this guys past and the emotions that tends to bring up the leeway for side discussions is narrower.

i find that most ppl in the western world generally live by the old 'innocent until proven guilty' belief until it comes to certain types of crimes such as pedophilia or domestic abuse type crimes where we start jumping to conclusions way too fast. this guy is undoubtedly scum and i would not have him anywhere near my children no matter how long ago his conviction took place but in the context of a poker tourney i just dont see the correlation...

Are children absolutely banned from the premises of the EPL tournies?

I think that would probably be a fair assumption. Wonder if it has any correlation with being both highly underreported crimes?

Most serious crimes are reported at a very high rate, while domestic violence, molestation, and even date rape are not according to victimization surveys compared to official records.

Also in these types of cases (minus maybe date rape), it is usually a type of behavior that is ongoing/repeated. Perhaps we feel that when someone has been reported on it is something that has been unpunished for years and that adds fuel to the fire.

I don't really feel unjust about presuming someone guilty of a crime like this when they have a history of that behavior in the past knowing that it is usually an ongoing behavior