4 ms·

I dunno about you guys but I'm pretty sick of the word "sanction". What's next? "My kids didn't clean their room before bedtime so I had to impose crippling san

I dunno about you guys but I'm pretty sick of the word "sanction". What's next? "My kids didn't clean their room before bedtime so I had to impose crippling sanctions"? "CEO enacts sanctions on employees after poor quarterly results"?

pc86 4y ago
It's a term of art, not sure why it bothers you on such a personal level.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dylan604 4y ago
  My issue with the word sanction is that it is not really defined other than "cripiling" so I have no idea what it is actually doing. It also means that the individuals are not directly being punished. I have the same feeling towards Congress when they censure someone. Ooooohh, you've used a big word to say you didn't like something someone did/said. Big whoop. It means nothing. It's not even as scary as being sent to timeout. Then again, the website told me "Your browser is set to private mode. To continue reading, log in or subscribe." so I was unable to read the full article. Whether I'm in private mode or not is none of their damn business.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > My issue with the word sanction is that it is not really defined other than "cripiling" so I have no idea what it is actually doing. They explain the sanctions directly in the article. "For that reason, Zilly said that when the case goes to trial he’ll instruct the jury that it may presume the text messages were detrimental to the city’s legal position and that there’s significant circumstantial evidence they were deleted intentionally." "He also ordered the city to pay the attorneys fees for those who showed city leaders destroyed significant evidence about their decision-making during CHOP, including their move to abandon the Police Department’s East Precinct." Instructing the jury to assume the evidence of wrongdoing existed is indeed a crippling sanction; that's an immensely high bar for the lawyers to have to jump over now.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      >They explain the sanctions directly in the article. Maybe you missed where is stated: >>Then again, the website told me "Your browser is set to private mode. To continue reading, log in or subscribe." so I was unable to read the full article. Whether I'm in private mode or not is none of their damn business.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > I was unable to read the full article. Then it is rather odd to complain that the article lacks information.
        dylan604 4y ago
        Just like you not reading where arguments have already been stipulated. what's your point?
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        The point was to provide you with the information you were looking for.
        dylan604 4y ago
        with attitude about my being unable to read the article
        pc86 4y ago
        More like unwilling, but sure. Honestly your tone this entire thread isn't conducive to any sort of constructive discussion. It seems like you're just having a bad day and lashing out at this article for whatever reason.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pc86 4y ago

It's a term of art, not sure why it bothers you on such a personal level.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dylan604 4y ago
My issue with the word sanction is that it is not really defined other than "cripiling" so I have no idea what it is actually doing. It also means that the individuals are not directly being punished. I have the same feeling towards Congress when they censure someone. Ooooohh, you've used a big word to say you didn't like something someone did/said. Big whoop. It means nothing. It's not even as scary as being sent to timeout. Then again, the website told me "Your browser is set to private mode. To continue reading, log in or subscribe." so I was unable to read the full article. Whether I'm in private mode or not is none of their damn business.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > My issue with the word sanction is that it is not really defined other than "cripiling" so I have no idea what it is actually doing. They explain the sanctions directly in the article. "For that reason, Zilly said that when the case goes to trial he’ll instruct the jury that it may presume the text messages were detrimental to the city’s legal position and that there’s significant circumstantial evidence they were deleted intentionally." "He also ordered the city to pay the attorneys fees for those who showed city leaders destroyed significant evidence about their decision-making during CHOP, including their move to abandon the Police Department’s East Precinct." Instructing the jury to assume the evidence of wrongdoing existed is indeed a crippling sanction; that's an immensely high bar for the lawyers to have to jump over now.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >They explain the sanctions directly in the article. Maybe you missed where is stated: >>Then again, the website told me "Your browser is set to private mode. To continue reading, log in or subscribe." so I was unable to read the full article. Whether I'm in private mode or not is none of their damn business.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > I was unable to read the full article. Then it is rather odd to complain that the article lacks information.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        Just like you not reading where arguments have already been stipulated. what's your point?
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        The point was to provide you with the information you were looking for.
        dylan604 4y ago
        with attitude about my being unable to read the article
        pc86 4y ago
        More like unwilling, but sure. Honestly your tone this entire thread isn't conducive to any sort of constructive discussion. It seems like you're just having a bad day and lashing out at this article for whatever reason.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]