Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6889445" data-attributes="member: 82779">Some of it is a criminal issue because certain criminal acts (groping, making threats, rape, etc.) fall under the general umbrella of harassment of women in gaming.&nbsp; The non-criminal harassment is not a criminal issue (I mean, that goes without saying, but I wanted to be clear about it), but some seem to want criminal standards of innocence to apply to all varieties of harassment when the various civil standard are far more relevant.In tax, there are several non-criminal standards: &quot;reasonable basis&quot; (a roughly 20% chance of being upheld on its merits), &quot;substantial authority&quot; (a one in three chance of being upheld on its merits), and &quot;more likely than not&quot; or &quot;preponderance of the evidence&quot; (a greater than 50% chance of being upheld on its merits).&nbsp; These standards are allowed to be lower than the criminal standard of &quot;beyond a reasonable doubt&quot; (which despite public myth does not mean beyond &quot;all&quot; doubt) because meeting them doesn't result in depriving someone of their freedom, or executing them.&nbsp; They simply result in paying fines, or loss of money/property which, by their very nature, are replaceable where life and freedom are not.&nbsp; If any legal standard is to be applied, which is a discussion of its own, it really should be one of these civil standards and not the criminal standard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MechaPilot, post: 6889445, member: 82779"] Some of it is a criminal issue because certain criminal acts (groping, making threats, rape, etc.) fall under the general umbrella of harassment of women in gaming. The non-criminal harassment is not a criminal issue (I mean, that goes without saying, but I wanted to be clear about it), but some seem to want criminal standards of innocence to apply to all varieties of harassment when the various civil standard are far more relevant. In tax, there are several non-criminal standards: "reasonable basis" (a roughly 20% chance of being upheld on its merits), "substantial authority" (a one in three chance of being upheld on its merits), and "more likely than not" or "preponderance of the evidence" (a greater than 50% chance of being upheld on its merits). These standards are allowed to be lower than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which despite public myth does not mean beyond "all" doubt) because meeting them doesn't result in depriving someone of their freedom, or executing them. They simply result in paying fines, or loss of money/property which, by their very nature, are replaceable where life and freedom are not. If any legal standard is to be applied, which is a discussion of its own, it really should be one of these civil standards and not the criminal standard. [/QUOTE]

Verification