Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Midsummer Night's Dream

Platinum Donator
  • Content Count

    467
  • Joined

Community Reputation

112 100 Reputation

2 Followers

About Midsummer Night's Dream

Custom Song

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Character Information

  • Character Name
    Juno Midsomer

Recent Profile Visitors

2542 profile views
  1. Cyberbullying is reprehensible — there’s no question about that — but so is doxxing. Doxxing can potentially attract civil and criminal liability. The well-meaning statement about cyberbullying could have been done without that curious example and the doxxing. No one should respond to an abuser by abusing them in turn. I don’t think that’s how conflict resolution is taught anywhere. I don’t use Reddit so I am not sure how it would work, but I’m sure there are moderators or staff who can be contacted about problematic or malicious posts.
  2. My favourites include the score from The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and include particularly these two: La Califfa (with the renowned Yo-Yo Ma on cello) Gabriel’s Oboe The violins at 2:45 in La Califfa give me chills every time. Masterfully done. Yo-Yo Ma and Morricone supplied me with endless study music.
  3. Username: MidautumnMornings Comment: Good grief. It's been made abundantly clear that, by and large, the police don't wish to be reformed. It's time to disband, rebuild and "demilitarize" rogue departments; for all other departments, it's time for us to ditch legal devices such as "qualified immunity." It's time to adopt revised or new standards for vicariously liability and to be less protective towards these departments -- expose them to greater liability. Do this and we will soon hear a new tune. ** Juno would have posted the comment using Nord VPN. It is traceable to the Del Perro Pier. **
  4. Kanye lost his marbles after this:
  5. “Malpractice in the Professions” (forthcoming) $1 With expertise and privilege comes the weight of great responsibility. Those who stake their place in privileged professions are expected to take care and use their place of expertise in a way which avoids harming others. When they do not, civil liability will generally attach. The law operates in this way not only in response to the private wrong, but also, ultimately, to protect the public. With this manual, readers will explore the liabilities affecting commonly regulated professions, as well as the common exceptions underlying them — exceptions we may come to call “immunities.” Malpractice in the Professions is niche; but it aims to treat readers to a thorough account of malpractice in the world of professions.
  6. User: Midsomer Comment: As much as I appreciate honest criticism — especially from someone qualified to give it, as Ms. Fruili here — and as much as I support holding public officials to account for their policy choices and their actions — or, rather, in this case, their inaction — there is one pressing issue which bears reminding: Ms. Fruili needs to carefully walk the NDA line. I expect she will have more to say about her time in the government, so I firmly recommend that she sit down with someone qualified to go over the particulars of the NDA and then sort out what can be said without breaching it. There will be public-policy impediments, public interest, and First-Amendment intricacies (especially here because the speech operates against the government of the day) to consider. Barring national security contexts, virtually no NDA is immune from those considerations. All the best wishes, Ms. Fruili.
  7. In theory, printing money and putting that money into circulation devalues the currency and causes inflation; that’s correct. However, the reality is much less straightforward than the theory. In practice, because there is no way for us to determine how much money is currently in circulation — for instance, virtually nobody would know that newly-minted money was put into circulation — this should not cause inflation. As I have said on GTAW’s discord, a lot appraised goods or property are arbitrary and cannot be tied to whether the economy is inflated or not. In the real world, there are typically two ways of putting money into circulation: a central bank making an interest-rate drop, which — in theory — encourages people to borrow and spend more, rather than save or hoard. The second is through printing money and putting that money into circulation; typically, the central bank would do this and then put that money into circulation by lending it to private banks, which, in turn, lend to consumers. If a central bank wanted to put more money into circulation, it will — though by no means invariably — instead lower interest or lending rate to disincentivize consumers from hoarding their money in a savings account and, instead, encourage spending, i.e. increasing circulation, or the rate at which money changes hands. This is typically the first and only resort, although, of course, recourse may be had to printing money. The consequence in the end is that more money in circulation with increased spending results, in theory, in higher demand for goods and services, which increases scarcity and, with it, the price for goods and services. When there is a change of interest rate, which are what central banks typically use to manipulate inflation, the public announcement of the policy setting the rate means that suppliers of goods and services can anticipate when there will be a greater demand on goods and services. The public announcement allows individuals to financially plan, and adjust their plans accordingly (i.e. save less and spend more; perhaps, take out a loan from a private bank’s reserves to embark on, for example, a home renovation). Put another way, a public announcement about interest-rate changes allows everyone to discern when they should expect there will be more money in circulation, and to act accordingly — at least in theory. But again, the reality is not usually as straightforward. For instance: a central bank might print more money, inject that money into private lenders’ reserves (whether through securities purchases or lending), and then lower interest rates all in attempt to encourage people to take our loans, among other things, from those lenders and bring about a flurry of spending; but, in the end, people might still be reluctant to take out loans, or spend more, even with the rate cut and the stimulus in injecting more money. Here, we don’t have lending rates fixed by a central bank which buys securities from and lends funds to private lenders. There is also really no way for anyone to know when there’s been an increase of money in circulation; and so there’s no reliable and immediate way for sellers and suppliers to see a reason to raise the prices of their goods. Unless suppliers of goods and services can reliably see that there was an influx of cash injected into market for circulation, prices should not always increase. One way they can try to see this is through taking note of increased spending in their business — in other words, increased demand for their goods — but that’s still a dubious gauge (because the reason for the increase spending/demand might be unrelated to newly-minted money entering circulation). Of course individuals might see their own paychecks or social benefits increase, which would — in theory — cause them to spend more. But again, that’s just in theory; people might, paradoxically, continue to save their money despite receiving more cash, as if nothing happened. This kind of response — paradoxical though it may seem — might occur when there’s widespread anxiety during a crisis (for e.g. take the COVID-19 pandemic), particularly if there is widespread fear and anxiety which the government is unable to alleviate. And if consumers do continue to hold onto their cash, the rate of circulation does not change and so neither should the demand and price variables. To summarize, the reality is much more complicated than ‘more printing = higher inflation.’ In our system, and even in the real world, it’s very difficult to discern how much money is in circulation at any given point. The consequence — perhaps an uncomfortable to some — of this salient fact is that a lot of prices are arbitrary. Edit: I should note that my comments don’t mention the other half of the equation: output. If output remains the same while money circulation, spending and demand all increase, this should result in scarcity and so inflation. But if output were to keep up with increased demand caused by increased circulation and spending, there should be minimal to no inflation. Hypothetically, if the government injected a lot of cash and distributed the cash not just to consumers but to manufacturers too, allowing them to undertake capital spending and increasing their manufacturing output quickly — with turnover and upgrading in record time — then those manufacturers should be able to keep up with increased consumer demand from the market and, consequently, keep scarcity and inflation at bay. (As an aside: relying on human workers to keep up with an increase in demand might be difficult, but, perhaps, this will be easier with automation — even then, robots have their limitations too!)
  8. Username: MidsummerEvenings Comment: I’ll take their word that there actually was a tipster with a rumour, which led to follow-ups and useful leads worth pursuing; so I’ll retract my characterization of PNN’s investigation as “fishing” about. The concern persists, however, that PNN thought it appropriate to publish this despite the risk of misinformation outweighing any benefit that could be had from exposure. There is attendant concern, also, that PNN’s editorial screening produced what can only be called extreme and sensationalistic — possibly the most extreme parts of an interview they admit isn’t presented in whole. It is reminiscent of tabloid fodder, certainly not a respectable, objective investigation. The concern I expressed was not that PNN made a claim; rather, it was that they failed to disclaim — specifically, failed to ensure fair reporting by including a caveat of some sort. PNN says it did not include “large disclaimer” because they intended to leave readers to their own devices. For a highly-charged topic — one rife with fantastically bizarre ideas of collusion — that is irresponsible journalism. This justification also appears disingenuous if one turns to the very first line of the article. It does not describe the group in generic terms as a paramilitary organization, but, instead, expressly fixes the “Antifa” label, as if to announce their affiliation. An objective report would have forgone the label and described the group generically in the opening; followed by, perhaps, a statement to report that “the organization claimed to be part of Antifa” (or some other statement along that line). The way that opening was delivered was not objective; it primed readers to associate the interview with Antifa. Above all, it lent too much credence about affiliation to an unreliable representation by two masked individuals. Unfortunately, PNN comes off as a wolf in sheep’s clothing — much like the far-right provocateurs we’ve seen in other places as of late. These deceptive tactics are too familiar to not warrant suspicion. The concern about the absence of a disclaimer also persists. I did not expect a “large disclaimer” in PNN’s delivery. An appropriately-placed caveat no more than a single line — perhaps a few words — would have been enough. PNN couldn’t even manage that. And if PNN couldn’t manage to give a caveat, can one be blamed for thinking that they aren’t actually interested in fair and objective reporting?
  9. Username: MidsummerEvenings Comment: In PNN’s “About Us,” they vowed that their platform would avoid “propagand[izing]” and, in particular, that they would refrain from taking a “pro-police slant” in the name of police accountability. Here, in their début publication, they have already discredited themselves. By the end of this article, it should be plainly obvious to the careful reader that PNN’s approach here is fundamentally flawed. The problem is that they have cast about for the most extremist element of the movement against authoritarianism, and, in a broad-brush fashion, ascribed it to the entire movement. Was this their idea of police accountability — fishing around for the most extremist element of a movement and allowing it to slip through their editorial screening? Is misleading their readers with a wildly sensationalized approach to a reasonable cause how they hold the police accountable? Editorially sloppy work is excusable; but the problem with this article runs so deep, it fundamentally betrays their own vows to their readers: the vow to refrain from indoctrinating them. It is much worse than being editorially sloppy — it is editorially vitiating. This supposed “paramilitary” group may be an off-shoot of some movement, perhaps even and including Antifa; they could be self-proclaimed proponents of Antifa; but this group represents only themselves. These interviewees do not speak for any movement but — either — for their own, or for themselves as individuals. I’m alarmed that the editor didn’t bother to highlight this obvious risk of generalization and attempt to proactively avoid it. Make no mistake about it; the approach taken here, in this article, is as misleading and indoctrinating as any propaganda they purport to detest. For flouting even their own standard, PNN receives a failing grade.
  10. At long last, sexual orientation has been recognized as Title VII discrimination ground, courtesy of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Some will say that today’s decision was an expansion of Title VII by an unelected body; others will say that the decision was only faithful to the Civil Rights Act’s protected grounds and, in particular, an honest approach to the meaning of the term “sex.“ In either case, it’s a welcome development in my book. Congratulations! In the spirit of Pride Month, here’s some related LGBTQ+ history out of Canada: Canada’s SCC made a similar decision in 1998 in Vriend v. Alberta. There, a religious college in Alberta terminated the employment of its lab assistant after it learned of his sexual orientation. He sought advice and tried to bring a discrimination claim under Alberta’s human rights legislation, but was unable to because “sexual orientation” was excluded from the legislation’s protected grounds. Vriend then tendered a constitutional claim where he submitted that this exclusion of “sexual orientation” meant that Alberta human rights regime was incompatible with the Constitution Act 1982 (colloquially known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or simply “the Charter”). In a virtually unanimous decision, the SCC agreed, holding that sexual orientation is an “analogous ground” analogous to those which are in Section 15 of the Charter; that, as a result, Alberta’s exclusion was incompatible with Section 15, and could not be saved by Section 1 (called the “reasonable limitations” clause, this section, as the name suggests, allows reasonable limitations to certain parts of the Charter).
  11. The community is not ready for this points system because the courts are not ready for this points system. A points system similar to California's system would be something to consider if there were actually fair trials and impartial, objective and trained decision-makers. With all of the out-of-character restrictions, there aren't and that'd be evident if one thoroughly looked into it. The courts routinely disregard fair trial guarantees in the name of expedience. One justification given was that this is a game and so there needs to be "balance;" but balance is not achieved when you curtail a defendant's ability to mount a defence. To add to my confusion, this talk of achieving a balance — the "it's just a game" quip — is something I've now heard from both sides: those in this thread who are against the points system and who, presumably, have criminal characters; and those who are in favor of curtailing trials and have law enforcement characters. (Too tragic and funny when we have courts who refuse to address their portrayal and realism issues because "it's just a game," and, at the same time, we have some roleplaying criminals who refuse a points system for habitual offenders for the same reason. It seems neither side wants to concede that there are realism issues on their end because, they say, the fact that they're playing a game absolves them of having to reach for realism). I'd like to think that the statements about portrayal are sincere, but I find it hard to fathom that sacrificing basic guarantees — and ignoring realism issues running unabated in the courts — is necessary for achieving a "balance." The statements about achieving a balance are even more appalling when those courts ignore the need to make criminal roleplay fun and, instead, expect realism from criminals. In short: the courts can disregard realism on their end but expect it on the criminal's end. This paradox causes me to question the motivation behind this points system and the 10-day time-limit on criminal proceedings. Are these really sincere attempts to enforce realism or are these just subtle moves to tilt the process? (Even if they are sincere attempts to fix realism issues, as many have said here, should it not be for illegal faction management to handle out-of-character). Are these really sincere attempts to achieve a balance or are they just attempts to prosecute and condemn to a CK as many, and as quickly, habitual criminals as possible? If the motivation for this points system is to encourage realistic criminal roleplay, it is only fair to demand that the courts should put their own house in order first. (When I say "put their own house in order," I mean to say that they should do that voluntarily; but if they don't then it should be forced through out-of-character roleplay quality enforcement. The same said of courts is said of criminal roleplay: realism and portrayal issues in both should be addressed by faction management if they are not addressed voluntarily) To put this post into perspective, consider how the 10-day time-limit rule imposed on criminal proceedings would operate with the points system. This time limit is designed to minimize delay and, presumably, encourage plea bargaining. The points system, coupled with the time-limit rule, virtually guarantees life imprisonment or CK for anyone unfortunate enough to end up in court. The whole of the criminal justice system can, thus, be summed up in this way: 1. The accused is brought before a court, and then coaxed into pleading guilty because they have only a few days to make their case once they are through preliminary, discovery, and the prosecution's opening. 2. When they do enter a guilty plea, they are convicted; but when they don't — when they instead proceed to trial — whatever remains of the 10 days is rarely enough (one recent trial took seven days just to get through a pre-trial preliminary hearing) and they end up being summarily convicted and (if the convictions are for felonies) rack up points. (And that's aside from the fact that summarily convicting an accused is troubling from a U.S. perspective). 3. When the accused pleads guilty, they rack up points; and, eventually, they are before the court again, this time facing life imprisonment or CK under the points system. However, they run into the same issues as in their earlier proceedings: coaxed into entering guilty by a 10-day time-limit, or summarily convicted in less than 10 days. Ultimately, in 10 days, they are summarily condemned to life imprisonment or CK. 4. All of this moderated by judges who appear to be untrained (there are examples of realism and portrayal difficulties that could be remedied with adequate training), minimally-qualified and who apply rules in an inconsistent fashion. Very little of it is balanced — perhaps the only fairness in it all is that an accused is permitted to, at least, say something to the court during the process. If we are to put the fate of members' characters and roleplay into the police’s and courts' hands, I expect — at bare minimum — some training and a process that doesn't routinely disregard the rights of criminal defendants. Allow them to mount a defence and test it objectively; because that is what they are entitled to. This isn't just "legal nuance" or head-spinning niceties — I am speaking about basic guarantees for which there is no gray area. I am speaking of expectations for which there hasn't been gray areas for at least half a century. The 10-day time-limit is not compatible with realism if realism is the goal. Consider removing it, and provide training, and then one can say there is enough progress to consider discussing the move towards a points system. It's only fair to put your own house in order before criticizing criminal portrayal and implementing an overhaul that'll have some impact on that roleplay.
  12. Reprehensible. What happened to decency?
  13. Congratulations to one and all. Great additions to the Support Team, including and particularly @HaveADream and @Bash—the most suitable choices I’ve come across in my time here!
  14. Username: InMemoryofRodneyKing Comment: Beyond comprehension. A man is callously killed by brutes with a badge and here in San Andreas we’re building precincts to recruit more brutes. This country is unravelling at the seams. Who will be around to pick up the pieces?
×
×
  • Create New...