| |
BGonline.org Forums
Request of Play65 Board of Trustees
Posted By: Michael Petch
Date: Tuesday, 1 December 2009, at 11:14 p.m.
I have been watching as people pounce on the PJT situation requesting PJT come here and prove himself. I am requesting Play65 and specifically its board of trustees give it side of the story.
For instance a) Why is it that there is no public disclosure by Play65 yet (specifically its board of trustees) either supporting or refuting the claims against PJT. I will use the same logic that people are using with PJT - why are the board of trustees and Play65 not here responding, and whether they are aware of the thread here (Highly likely they know considering who make sup the board and who posts here) b) Stick isn't divulging clearly private information, but professing his viewpoint based on that data. My question to the board of trustees is whether they have ever violated PJT's privacy by divulging condifential information outside of the Play65/LogicEmpire (Not just to Stick but to anyone else for that matter). Someone fed information to Stick and there is enough circumstancial evidence in my mind to throw the question directly at the feet of board of trustees at Play65. I ask this question because there would liekly be enough evidence to conclude that such information came from them, and I want them to respond to my allegation. c) Do the board of trustees intend to tell us their views,and their conclusions regarding PJT specifically, and provide the evidence that may refute or bolster their claim. d) Is the board of trustees using backchannels, rumour and innuendo at such a convenient time (the Giant's list voting) to alter perceptions enough to change people's voting patterns? I think anyone reading all these posts might find it coincidental that PJT was on Stick's list, then removed, then a claim made, and then removal from said list. I would say that in at least one case someone was influenced by the information.
I need to know both sides of the story. And PJT is just one side of this equation. I have started to piece together circumstancial evidence that Play65 and its trustees MAY ALSO be immoral. I'd like to see them defend their position.
If Stick and the people who fed him information are 110% sure the guy is guilty then publicizing the evidence is easy. If there is no false information and the accusations can be 110% substantiated then there is little risk of a Libel suit. I have to ask, if there is 110% - why all the secrecy. If Stick claims "because of privacy", then I have to ask "wasn't it an invasion of PJT's privacy to disclose the 'scandal' in the first place.
There is defintely smoke, I just don't know where the fire is at this time.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.