Nobody will get banned

[Radic]

All cool stories bro's
and with that I mean the exact opposite

OP has a valid thread, I read his post, thought whatever, moved on....

And that seems the most healthy thing to do...

 

[Kwicko]

If you believe clouds are made of marshmallows, I'm impress you know how to write. That must be a real achievement for you, so keep up the good work. One day you will be normal intelligence.

You're "impress" he know how to write?

Beautiful.

Hopefully one day you will be "normal intelligence", too.

 

[GTShadowKing]

 

[khj94704]

He posted it as "hear-say" not fact. So he is defiantly following the rules. Take it at face value is that so hard?

Most here were taking it at face value. When faced with the mocking the OP got in the cheap shots with the McDonalds comments. Beyond that, though, is that substantiated or not, just about everyone knew that the banhammer wasn't going to come down on people that were duping. Was this an exemplar of maturity by everyone involved? Probably not, but if you go around thinking everyone should take everything you post on internet message boards as the unassailable truth, you've got to step out of your fantasy land and join the rest of us in whatever the heck *this* is.

 

[Mario2Lopez]

Just like the time I shared my Save Data and Nobody thought it would work
People didn't wanted to tried it until I provided proof. Or the time the Update 1.05 was no longer available and I showed proof for it and got a $50 Gift Card from SONY. Honestly I have nothing to prove to any of you If you want to believe is cool if not I could care less.

Save Data
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=169949
Proof
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170111
1.05
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=176684

 

[GTShadowKing]

I donno if I should believe you, but I really hope what you said is true, but anyway

 

[GrimSinn]

if you go around thinking everyone should take everything you post on internet message boards as the unassailable truth, you've got to step out of your fantasy land and join the rest of us in whatever the heck *this* is.

That's not my fantasy world, maybe yours but not mine that's why I said ( and you quoted) "take it at face value". If when I suggest taking info at face value you feel that implies that I believe or suggest to believe everything you read in message boards I'm baffled on how you would draw such an obviously incorrect conclusion. In life though we tend to draw the conclusions that we want to, usually to justify our own actions. Hmmmmm, lol.

 

[Dreadin]

I donno if I should believe you, but I really hope what you said is true, but anyway

Ok that is twice now you have brought religion into a tread with your posts...

 

[GTShadowKing]

Ok that is twice now you have brought religion into a tread with your posts...

What matter is the message "Cool story bro", not the figurines. I've nothing against religion.

Twice?

 

[Dreadin]

What matter is the message "Cool story bro", not the figurines. I've nothing against religion.

Twice?

Yes twice, as it it the 2nd time you have posted that pic... once here and once in the other thread... that would make twice .... correct

 

[G.T.Ace]

Ummm, how does not providing proof violate knowingly false information?

My buddy told me that the GDP of Ireland is $20mill.

I post that info.

I do not know that it's wrong.

And what proof are you looking for? Proof that his cousin works at SCEI? What would that prove? The info could still be wrong... his cousin could be lying or it could be misinformation... in neither case does is he knowingly posting wrong information.

There seems to be some confusion between posting something you aren't positive is right and knowingly posting wrong information. They are not the same thing... not that the proof people are asking for really would make a diference anyway.

Ultimately what he says sounds reasonable, it's hearsay from the internet, take it with a grain of salt.

I posted the link and quote more because of the statement "Ask for proof all you want nobody is obliged to provide it." itself. Because otherwise everyone could claim whatever he wants. And I still think threads like this here are completely ridiculous. Let's say he posted something in the past, which turned out to be true, like amar did for example, then it would make sense (without a "source"). But here we have someone, coming out of nowhere, saying "My cousing told me...", seriously.

The rest makes kinda sense, although I doubt that's the reason.
I am pretty sure Sony would've stated that, because it would've meant a lot less hate (people would understand it more then). I believe it's just a design decision by PD, to keep cars like the X2010 something special.

 

[Addixted]

How dare you people question AC Slater!!

Awesome. Just awesome.

 

[GTShadowKing]

Yes twice, as it it the 2nd time you have posted that pic... once here and once in the other thread... that would make twice .... correct

Correct

 

[the.true.samiam]

Where the hell are the mods these days? Why aren't they doing their jobs? Every God damned thread I read it seems, is degenerating into this absolute nonsense. Are they even monitoring anymore? Why do they not close these threads when they turn into flame-fests like this?

 

[nyyellowtaxi]

Just like the time I shared my Save Data and Nobody thought it would work
People didn't wanted to tried it until I provided proof. Or the time the Update 1.05 was no longer available and I showed proof for it and got a $50 Gift Card from SONY. Honestly I have nothing to prove to any of you If you want to believe is cool if not I could care less.

It's not that people doesn't believe you. Anyone with a single working brain cell (including my cat) knows Sony is not going to ban people for glitch that they 🤬 up in the game. They will certainly patch it in 1.08. That's just common sense.

You posted the original post in another thread and nobody cared. That's because it's something obvious. You made a new post about it and people still don't care.

I don't understand. Were you expecting a medal for a major "DUH" moment?

 

[Dreadin]

Where the hell are the mods these days? Why aren't they doing their jobs? Every God damned thread I read it seems, is degenerating into this absolute nonsense. Are they even monitoring anymore? Why do they not close these threads when they turn into flame-fests like this?

was thinking the same thing

 

[Devedander]

I posted the link and quote more because of the statement "Ask for proof all you want nobody is obliged to provide it." itself. Because otherwise everyone could claim whatever he wants. And I still think threads like this here are completely ridiculous. Let's say he posted something in the past, which turned out to be true, like amar did for example, then it would make sense (without a "source"). But here we have someone, coming out of nowhere, saying "My cousing told me...", seriously.

The rest makes kinda sense, although I doubt that's the reason.
I am pretty sure Sony would've stated that, because it would've meant a lot less hate (people would understand it more then). I believe it's just a design decision by PD, to keep cars like the X2010 something special.

Well that's whty that rule doesn't have a lot of teeth... as I pointed out knowlingly posting something false is not the same as unwittingly being wrong. So even if what he says isn't true, no eveidence about his relations employment status would make any difference.

I am fairly sure the rule is meant to prevent blantent flaimbating where someone tries to state something as bieng ture that is generally known not to be true... for instance if someone was to come along and say Forza is better than GT5 becuase it has 2000 cars and all of them are higher quality than anything in GT5.

The burden of proof falls on the accusor to prove that he is knowingly saying something that is untrue... not on him to prove he is not.

BTW he did list his history of being right in the past.

 

[Ken]

This thread is going to get people banned. Can't we all just get along?

 

[KWZX10]

Where the hell are the mods these days? Why aren't they doing their jobs?

They're using the glitch! LOL.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Well that's whty that rule doesn't have a lot of teeth... as I pointed out knowlingly posting something false is not the same as unwittingly being wrong. So even if what he says isn't true, no eveidence about his relations employment status would make any difference.

True, never said the opposite.

I am fairly sure the rule is meant to prevent blantent flaimbating where someone tries to state something as bieng ture that is generally known not to be true... for instance if someone was to come along and say Forza is better than GT5 becuase it has 2000 cars and all of them are higher quality than anything in GT5.

This too, but it's also there so you don't brag with things you do not own, like cars (you might take a look into the "ridiculous claim" thread). Again, I posted the quote from the AUP because yes, if you state something as a fact, you have to prove that you are right, if you cannot prove it because of certain things (N.D.A.), you better don't post it, or you will get a mess like this thread here (unless you have something like amar's reputation).

The burden of proof falls on the accusor to prove that he is knowingly saying something that is untrue... not on him to prove he is not.

We are not in the court here.

 

[Dreadin]

True, never said the opposite.


This too, but it's also there so you don't brag with things you do not own, like cars (you might take a look into the "ridiculous claim" thread). Again, I posted the quote from the AUP because yes, if you state something as a fact, you have to prove that you are right, if you cannot prove it because of certain things (N.D.A.), you better don't post it, or you will get a mess like this thread here (unless you have something like amar's reputation).



We are not in the court here.

That being said the only ones he would have to show the proof to would be to the mods. not us.

 

[G.T.Ace]

But he cannot prove it, just like Devedander said, unless he can bring someone from Sony or Polyphony Digital to say what he, or rather his cousin said.

 

[Devedander]

This too, but it's also there so you don't brag with things you do not own, like cars (you might take a look into the "ridiculous claim" thread). Again, I posted the quote from the AUP because yes, if you state something as a fact, you have to prove that you are right, if you cannot prove it because of certain things (N.D.A.), you better don't post it, or you will get a mess like this thread here (unless you have something like amar's reputation).

I am sorry but I do not agree that that is what the rule means or is for. It does not say you must prove everything you say is right, it says you must not knowingly post something that is untrue.

You are making the common logic mistake that A therefore B assumes you must prove B or else no A.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. It does not say you can only say things you can and will backup as true only that you will not say things you know are not true.

Believe it or not, the two are very different things.

Example again: The GDP or Ireland is $20mill.

I have not said anything I know to be untrue. That's it. End of story. I do not have to prove anything... that is what the rule says lierally.

Again it does not say I must backup everything I do say. It doesn't even say I have to ultimatley be right.

Just that I not say it knowing that it's untrue.

So unless you can prove that what he has said is both untrue AND that he knew it was untrue while saying it, the rule does not apply here.

We are not in the court here.

While the terminology is commonly used in court, the meaning is applciable in many situations outside of court. This would be a case where it certainly is.

BTW your implied demands of proof seems awfully high bearing in mind we are not indeed in court.

 

[Dreadin]

But he cannot prove it, just like Devedander said, unless he can bring someone from Sony or Polyphony Digital to say what he, or rather his cousin said.

My point is you and I along with those who asked will never know, so why make it a debate?

 

[Welsh-Fury]

Getting banned or not, I plan to stay away from any "Glitching to gain Progress" methods.

There are other major gaming companies that frown upon abusing glitches/hacks, not saying PD is the same way, I just think about the "It might just happen" factor on any major online game.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I am sorry but I do not agree that that is what the rule means or is for. It does not say you must prove everything you say is right, it says you must not knowingly post something that is untrue.

You do not have to proof everything if it's common sense, of course, but if you make a ridiculous claim, you should be able to prove it (you should be able anyway, never mind the rule).

You are making the common logic mistake that A therefore B assumes you must prove B or else no A.

No.

I am sorry but the rule states that when you knowingly say something untrue, someone has to prove you did. Who that is (you or someone else) is not specified, however lack of evidence is not evidence of untruth.

It does not say you can only say things you can and will backup as true.

If people are doubting what you say because it's a kinda strange claim, you "have to" (note the ""'s) prove the opposite, it's your turn then.

Believe it or not, the two are very different things.



While the terminology is commonly used in court, the meaning is applciable in many situations outside of court. This would be a case where it certainly is.

BTW your implied demands of proof seems awfully high bearing in mind we are not indeed in court.

I never demanded proof here, I just said he shouldn't have started this thread with no evidence at all, because then you will get exactly what we have now.

 

[HaylRayzor]

The truth is hard.

 

[Devedander]

You do not have to everything if it's common sense, of course, but if you make a ridiculous claim, you should be able to prove it (you should be able anyway, never mind the rule).

That's your opinion. Has nothing to do with the rule you alluded to.

No.

So you are saying you think that "do not say something you know to be untrue" IS the same as "prove everything you say is true" despite how I have illustrated it is not?

If people are doubting what you say because it's a kinda strange claim, you "have to" (note the ""'s) prove the opposite, it's your turn then.

Again, your opinion, not any kind of rule. I agree I think it would be best to, but that's just my opinion. Lot's of things have come out on these forums that were weird claims, not backed up and were ultimately true... same can be said the other way.

One big problem there is that this forum was originaly named for discussion of news, events and rumor of GT5... there is no expectation of proof of accuracy to post. Of course it helps people believe you but it's not grounds for dismissal if you don't have it.

I never demanded proof here, I just said he shouldn't have started this thread with no evidence at all, because then you will get exactly what we have now.

Well you linked to the rule... why would you do that if you weren't demanding proof? And yes, saying "don't do this unless you can provide proof" about something someone has already done is indeed demanding proof.

 

[ScariestGariest]

This one time, at GT camp...

 

[G.T.Ace]

That's your opinion. Has nothing to do with the rule you alluded to.

Yes and no, because the rule exists for more than just what you thought.
But it's more my opinion though indeed.

So you are saying you think that "do not say something you know to be untrue" IS the same as "prove everything you say is true" despite how I have illustrated it is not?

No, but if you claim something, which people doubt, you kinda have to prove it, otherwise everyone will just go in circles (like this very thread here).

Again, your opinion, not any kind of rule. I agree I think it would be best to, but that's just my opinion. Lot's of things have come out on these forums that were weird claims, not backed up and were ultimately true... same can be said the other way.

Yes, my opinion, although a bit common sense.

Well you linked to the rule... why would you do that if you weren't demanding proof? And yes, saying "don't do this unless you can provide proof" about something someone has already done is indeed demanding proof.

I didn't post "don't do this unless you can provide proof" because I demand it from him in this special "case", I did post it because otherwise you will get chaos (for the 30000th time, exactly like in this thread). I posted the link to the rule, because the post I quoted did sound like "someone can post whatever he wants, if you don't believe it, it's your problem", which is false, because if... *insert rule here*