this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30431 readers
253 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But these two attempts at defending what Jirard did are genuinely ridiculous.

Taking issue with how Jobst constructed his videos to attack Jirard is not the same as defending Jirard.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Jobst: He seems to have committed charity fraud

Video: Whoa whoa whoa, there's a very technical definition of charity fraud; you have to operate a charity and make false statements about what you're doing with the money (subject to a few additional caveats and restrictions.) This is a terribly irresponsible thing Jobst is saying without having proof of it or understanding the law as well as I do.

You: "There was no smoking gun" "He didn't prove it"

Also video: Those times Jirard clearly said untrue things about what was happening to the money, well hey, anyone could make that type of obvious innocent mistake

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

The first video showed the money hadn't moved. Correct, we can observe that from his research. The second video alleged more money was missing, alleged embezzlement and fraud, because he guessed that some money from a golf tournament wasn't accounted for. The problem here is that he has no hard numbers for how much money, no source to say that something malicious happened and was hidden, etc. Please recognize the difference here.

The video was phrased with reasonable doubt, while often juxtaposed against a tweet from someone to show why a reasonable person would think so.