While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee.
I'd nearly argue that it would be in his worst interest to participate in defrauding something since it might have revealed his horrible offenses.
Nobody said that
> they are a horrible, detestable human
Nobody said that either
All that's being said is that it's more likely he would do something nefarious, given his background.
No one is arguing a child rapist is okay; the issue other posters are having is that it is a incorrect argument.
Any further "but what if's..." are simply assumptions that do not have proof.
1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character".
or
2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".
being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement
The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."
But only because that'd be pretty hard to pull off.
Carl was arrested for molesting his nine year-old son. He committed suicide in jail awaiting trial.
With that said, do we disregard all of the learning materials he created? Is their value inherently reduced to zero now that we know they were the product of a sick individual?
This isn't just an thought exercise. Carl was a real person. He had a Reddit board dedicated to his lessons and instructing people. His website has since lost its host and pretty much all the videos are gone from the web, save for p2p torrenting, because no one will be caught dead hosting videos from a child molestor, not matter how innocuous the videos themselves were.
But for a referee putting down high scores from a video game, the referee's value stems entirely from the idea that the referee is a trustworthy observer.
Distributing knowledge, like Carl H was doing, does not involve the kind of sensibilities required to be a referee, judge or notary.
Were Carl H a federal judge, his crime would definitely put all trials presided by him under scrutiny.
In the latter case, his inability to make fair decisions in life is directly relevant to his qualification for a job that involves making fair decisions affecting other people.
Unfortunately I don't think this thought experiment is very relevant.
Child crimes are crimes that involve the abuse of trust in most cases. Like embezzlement, someone trusts you not to steal money or molest children given a situation with ample opportunity for you to do so, but you do it anyway. You demonstrate a lack of integrity when you commit a crime of this nature.
So why we should also trust him to be a living authority of a particular record? He has proven that trust in him is misplaced.
> Despite Omnigamer’s claim, as previously mentioned, Activision supposedly had created a machine-assisted run that determined 5.54 a perfect score, which is .03 better than Koziel’s model, thus making it impossible in his determinations. Crane explained to me that the “Dragster timer is .03 seconds per tick, so the difference that is being discussed is one tick of the game clock in a record set 35 years ago.”
http://www.twingalaxies.com/feed_details.php/87/dragster-des...
And this same gamer lied about other games with scores that are impossible to get.
Reference: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0kQ1V1Z...