Can't you read it in another way..?

I read that as: The odds that this happened to anyone, and exactly has happened to someone (becoming so rich) are so so so slim, that they are in fact 0%.
And the mentioning of the gaining wealth in a single couple of bets is just true, is it not? I know it was a bet, and he could have lost, too. But we (all others) have a 100 credit bet maximum.

Concluding.. I really read this differently, if you read it like that, it is not an accusation..

Well, the irony is obvious there.

We have all seen that in #dice, haven't we?

Having read the discussion that lead up to these events, I'm going to set aside my close character association with the man for a moment.

It seems like a lot of aspersions and ill motive were cast on JackMezzo's discussion when both the character and the identity behind it were engaging in a good faith debate about the limits and purpose of the hitlist.  While this discussion may have contained facts that were erroneous, a retraction by LG was offered to clarify these issues.

As was mentioned, we take you at your word that you honor private bets; but when publicly available credit bets shrink from 2500 to 100, it is fair to say that the vast majority of us (myself included) aren't aware that there is a direct avenue with you to bet many times over this public amount, in private.  If these dice bets were public for all to see and were not the product of rumors and whispers, the conversation would have likely gone where LG intended; the point of the hitlist and its impact on our shores.  Judging by its response, it's fair to say that this topic has left more than a few users fed up with this feature and have been grappling with years on how to address it in a way that does not break the economy. 

The nature of the quickly-renewed anonymous hitlist will lead many of us to assumptions that can typically only be afforded by a select few who have the resources to flout.  It's a fair thing in this context to bring up the weight that an individual or a group of individuals in this category can have on the greater economy and user base.  It is also fair to say that the common user won't typically get afforded this opportunity. This doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

JackMezzo, the character, was a guy who for months busted his ass and brought discussions to the streets because that's who he was.  This discussion was a small piece of his story.  When asked what his goals were after taking GF, his response was to simply have a full and happy district.  Painfully domestic.

LG, the identity behind the character, was a guy who mediated arguments, taught people how to play the game, rolled in to lounge and gave out credits more times than I could possibly begin to count, and came up with crazy competitions and paid for them out of his own pocket to engage activity.  I have never known him to engage in bad faith arguments.

He will be sorely missed.

The problem is the bets were not between two users they were between you and another player. The problem is this isn't know to the average user that this can be done and added to the fact that maybe 0.1% of the users have 10k credits.

I never knew you would accept any bet handed out to you, Squishy. That was not generally known, I reckon.

I feel that that fact partly has caused the shitty situation in which we have now lost what I reckon is the most contributing and composed member of the community as both a player and an admin.

Another question..

So if you feel the character crossed a line. Why was the admin killed?

I love scenario games, Squishy..

I know you mean it rhetorical, but I will still answer. if you want my honest opinion..

If Warrior's character gets caught on a dupe, which wouldn't surprise me a single bit, I think you should wack him. Because that would interfere with his integrity and would be massive cheating in the game.
If FrankieFigs's character gets caught scripting, I think you should wack him, too. As automation, too, is a gross violation of the rules and having done this would make him untrustworthy.
Yet, in the case of LG, I see a thread from him that you feel was out of line, of which I have already given my opinion (I don't read it that same way), but I also see someone that had the best intentions to improve the game and the community. Who is trustworthy and who told you in a private convo what his concerns were, before he apologized to you saying he should not have addressed the topic like he did.

Don't you see the difference between the scerarios?

to be clear: That was a joke about Warrior. I know him a bit and I think he might chuckle if he reads it..

Damn, I like to play this game to avoid the Cancel Culture there is in the real world as of lately, just to come find out that it is spreading into here too... Geez

To straight up cancel him and not even give him something in return for his massive contribution to the game as a whole while he has been alive is beyond fucked. May his soul rest in peace

You asked, I answered.

Fine, I will not speak about it anymore.

LG did not express himself as well as he could have. Some fault for this situation obviously lies with him, since he chose to speak, and obviously he failed in his purpose in doing so.

With that acknowledgement, it seems clear to me that this situation should have been averted by both parties.

Assuming a truly impartial judge, let's examine the part of Mezzo's speech that was cited here.

- I can't comment on the efforts made to accumulate the wealth, other than I know a vast majority was made in another time, through bets made with City Hall. Not by working the streets. No common gangster in this life will ever get a chance to earn that kind of credit assets, and so will never get the chance to challenge a hit placed on them.

Is it wrong to say that there is more wealth existing in dice-won credits that that earned from "normal" ways of making money in the game? There's currently $3,000,000,000 in cash in the game. This would be (assuming a perfect 500K price) 6,000 credits worth of cash. Are there more than 6,000 credits out there that people have won at dice? I cannot prove it, but it seems likely to me based on my time here. If so, then this statement would appear to be correct. 

It appears that the next statement about "getting a chance to earn that kind of credit assets" was interpreted as "some players have special ways to make credits that aren't available to others", which is not how I (and seemingly many others) read this. Personally, I read this more as a comment on the very small percentage of players who find themselves in this position- not due to admin bias, but simply due to the unlikelihood of getting that lucky and winning so many credits. 

Mezzo didn't say that special treatment was given to anyone. From my perspective, he simply stated that a common gangster- the average player or the new arrival- can't match the economic earning potential of a dicer with deep pockets. Isn't this a simple truth of economics? How much can a common gangster- someone who shows up and starts doing crimes and selling drugs- make compared to a dicer with a big bankroll? 

To be clear, yes of course that brand new player off the boat could buy some credits and dice their way into becoming a whale. But then they would no longer be a common gangster.

It seems clear to me, at least, that Mezzo was pointing out the potential earning disparity between the whales and the little fish and examining how that impacted the feature of the hitlist. It's understandable that those who run this game would be sensitive to any hints of impropriety, but even a truly objective judge would seemingly need to contort themselves to see this as an attack that took his words as "Squishy will accept bets from some people and not others". 

All of this has assumed a truly objective judge examining the speech as stated in the streets, but frankly I don't think there should be a truly objective judge here. When weighing this alleged hinted accusation of an admin, it seems ludicrous to me that the character and context of LG as a player is seemingly disregarded here.

I don't claim to know all the behind the scenes people who make MR happen, but I've been here on this site for over a decade. In those 14 years, I would highlight two people who have far and away done more than anyone else to try to build this game and build this community.

The first person would be Squishy, for the constant attention, devotion, and hard work he puts in to keep the MR lights on.

The second person would be LG. I have never known another player to even attempt half of what he was able to accomplish. Whether he had auth or not, he was constantly trying to brainstorm competitions and events. Why? To engage and improve the community. He was constantly trying to think of insightful and eye-catching street speeches. Why? To engage and improve the community. He was constantly trying to add new game mechanics like the jobs board for his crew. Why? To engage and improve the community.

When LG was here, he was consistently the most thoughtful, hard-working, and community-driven leader I've ever had the pleasure of knowing in all my time here. Clearly, he was someone that the game administrators respected, based on his position and the many interactions between them that I saw.

If he had snapped and started ranting in #main or making an OOC post directly alleging admin abuse, then he absolutely should have been wacked.  Instead, we had something that could maybe be construed as an allegation on a bad day referencing a presumed public policy that apparently very few players were actually aware of, all in an attempt to try to address how an economic disparity negatively impacted a game feature.

Could Mezzo have phrased his points better? Absolutely.

Should the player who has done more for the community in the last decade+ than any other player have been given the benefit of the doubt for a vague allegation, if that? Absolutely. 

Tammy you read it incorrectly, as discussed with JackMezzo in a follow up conversation, his intention was exactly how I read it.

So no, all three situations are similar, the intent was known, the deed was done anyway, being sorry about it at a later time doesn't change anything. I think it would be highly inappropriate to keep him on as staff after he did what he did. Is there anything left on this dead horse that's still needs to be beaten? as I said earlier multiple times to you, you should direct your questions towards him if it really is that important to you that you know what he said or did.

Are you saying that Jack Mezzo accused you personally of providing special treatment to some and not others? Or did he raise an issue about the perception of this in attempt to address an issue of a game feature within the community, in an attempt to improve the community? The two do not seem to be equivalent. 

The player who did more for this game than any other, a pillar of the community was admin-wacked for reasons that shocked, confused, and saddened a large number of players- and this happened seven hours ago. Many people are just waking up to learn about this for the first time, so this seems far from a dead horse situation.