by Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:46 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:07 pm
Queen Yuno wrote:YOU are garbage
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Sentinel Optik » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:21 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532
I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27778390
Too Long; Didn't Read:
Don't make accusations of offsite criminality.
Don't make accusations of offsite bad behavior that's irrelevant to the game.
Accusations of legit gameplay-related actions are kosher.
Don't go poking around at the edge cases; you might fall off those edges.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:24 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Sentinel Optik » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:26 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Preeeeetty sure claiming intent to spread false accusations of sexual harassment with the intention to defame, along with the implication of physical violence, are far too close to criminal for comfort.
by In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:37 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532
I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27778390
Furthermore, with the admission to/confirmation of the first post by the person it concerns found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27820883 I question whether any the actions mentioned *do* now fall under your realm, and warrant action along the lines of making threats against another player.
by Sentinel Optik » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:45 pm
In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532
I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27778390
Furthermore, with the admission to/confirmation of the first post by the person it concerns found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27820883 I question whether any the actions mentioned *do* now fall under your realm, and warrant action along the lines of making threats against another player.
In response to these most serious allegations, which are borne out of nothing more than the most spiteful betrayal imaginable, I will attempt to look past their deliberately onerous and misleading nature.
Firstly, I have never and will never condone an iRL crime. The veracity of this statement cannot be contested, and it will not be undone by the mere desires of those who would be so dominated by their lustful passions as to wish me incapacitated. Therefore, to take a private joke so severely out of context as to portray me as condoning murder, is to put it mildly, a farce, a sham and an utter disgrace. There is no jurisdiction that would take this offhand joke in an online chatroom as a serious one, there is no jurisdiction which would risk the ignominy of dragging before it an innocent man, who did nothing more than engage in a moment of humour with his supposed comrades. I note again that the quotes in question are severely out of context – a context of humor and general frivolity, one in which it is clear that no crime is being contemplated.
Furthermore, these actions occurred offsite, outside of moderator jurisdiction. It cannot be the policy of moderation to be the thought-police of offsite banter, especially when said banter is produced as evidence in a manner unbecoming when it comes to the gravity of the alleged crime. Photoshopped, noncontextual nonsense need not masquerade as anything else.
I will defend my honor and my integrity against any and all who would so callously impugn it.
by In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:50 pm
Sentinel Optik wrote:In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:
In response to these most serious allegations, which are borne out of nothing more than the most spiteful betrayal imaginable, I will attempt to look past their deliberately onerous and misleading nature.
Firstly, I have never and will never condone an iRL crime. The veracity of this statement cannot be contested, and it will not be undone by the mere desires of those who would be so dominated by their lustful passions as to wish me incapacitated. Therefore, to take a private joke so severely out of context as to portray me as condoning murder, is to put it mildly, a farce, a sham and an utter disgrace. There is no jurisdiction that would take this offhand joke in an online chatroom as a serious one, there is no jurisdiction which would risk the ignominy of dragging before it an innocent man, who did nothing more than engage in a moment of humour with his supposed comrades. I note again that the quotes in question are severely out of context – a context of humor and general frivolity, one in which it is clear that no crime is being contemplated.
Furthermore, these actions occurred offsite, outside of moderator jurisdiction. It cannot be the policy of moderation to be the thought-police of offsite banter, especially when said banter is produced as evidence in a manner unbecoming when it comes to the gravity of the alleged crime. Photoshopped, noncontextual nonsense need not masquerade as anything else.
I will defend my honor and my integrity against any and all who would so callously impugn it.
I have attempted to discern what Sci is saying despite not having a thesaurus handy, and I believe it to be that he did not intend for there to be an actual threat. I concur, as the leaker of the logs, that I likewise did not interpret any statement by him as legitimately criminal in nature in any kind of RL criminal context. I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:54 pm
In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:Sentinel Optik wrote:
I have attempted to discern what Sci is saying despite not having a thesaurus handy, and I believe it to be that he did not intend for there to be an actual threat. I concur, as the leaker of the logs, that I likewise did not interpret any statement by him as legitimately criminal in nature in any kind of RL criminal context. I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.
Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Sentinel Optik » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:59 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.
>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"
>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"
I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?
by In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:00 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.
>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"
>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"
I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:02 pm
Sentinel Optik wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"
>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"
I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?
Not sure if you understand the difference between IC and OOC.
In the context of the quote, my claim is that Sci wanted Gest to be discredited and removed as leader of DEN, more or less. It has NOTHING to do with an actual death threat, or an actual OOC harassment accusation against whoever Gest is in RL. It was ENTIRELY an IC logdump, with no OOC accusation made by me against Sci.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:04 pm
In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"
>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"
I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?
If you are truly so concerned about my intent to commit an iRL crime, you would then be surely at this moment contacting some actual legal authority, rather than taking to grandstanding in this thread. You will not contact any actual legal authority of course, because you know as well as I that what was said was no more than farce, and you would surely receive nothing but laughter and scorn for reporting it, if not a criminal case against yourself in retribution for your obviously litigious thirst.
Furthermore, I will not allow you to impugn my integrity. Perhaps you would like to air all your private conversations to ensure there is nothing prohibited in them? I think not.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:11 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam wrote:
If you are truly so concerned about my intent to commit an iRL crime, you would then be surely at this moment contacting some actual legal authority, rather than taking to grandstanding in this thread. You will not contact any actual legal authority of course, because you know as well as I that what was said was no more than farce, and you would surely receive nothing but laughter and scorn for reporting it, if not a criminal case against yourself in retribution for your obviously litigious thirst.
Furthermore, I will not allow you to impugn my integrity. Perhaps you would like to air all your private conversations to ensure there is nothing prohibited in them? I think not.
DO I think for a second you'd do the latter? No. The former? Perhaps. That's not the reported issue here, however - the reported issue is that I believe Optik's post to be in violation of the linked rule regard accusations of offsite behavior.
If you think I'm likewise breaking that rule, go ahead, report it, as is your right. If you wish to take anything offsite of mine here as well, do so only at your own risk of running afoul of it as well.
by Reploid Productions » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:47 pm
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by The Silver Sentinel » Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:29 pm
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:32 pm
The Silver Sentinel wrote:Not questioning the decision Reppy, but has it not been established that acting on behalf of a DOS player is grounds for deletion?
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Reploid Productions » Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:33 pm
The Silver Sentinel wrote:Not questioning the decision Reppy, but has it not been established that acting on behalf of a DOS player is grounds for deletion?
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Cogitation » Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:59 pm
There's nothing in the posted offsite material (or the rest of the specific post) to indicate that the contents are In-Character. In fact, the logs specifically talk about "DoS" for Delete-On-Sight, which strongly suggests that it's Out-Of-Character.Sentinel Optik wrote:I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.
Sentinel Optik wrote:Too Long; Didn't Read:
Don't make accusations of offsite criminality.
Don't make accusations of offsite bad behavior that's irrelevant to the game.
Accusations of legit gameplay-related actions are kosher.
Don't go poking around at the edge cases; you might fall off those edges.
I did not accuse Sci of criminality and it was relevant to the game as Sci is the leader of BoSS, allied to DEN, and it related to his plot against DEN and its leader.
Quit it with the namecalling. Now.Queen Yuno wrote:You all are trash. <snip> Actually YOU are garbage without trying to find out the full story.
by In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam » Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:26 pm
by Knot II » Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:31 pm
[12:18 AM] Knot: No worries, I have better kicking rates when there are more defenders.
[12:20 AM] Chingis Otchigin: Knot's hammer is splash damage konfirmed
by Reploid Productions » Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:35 pm
Knot II wrote:Egregious flamebait?
I'd like to kindly ask for a second opinion and/or clarification regarding the above ruling.
Since it's apparent in Reploid's post that behind-the-scenes and offsite information was used in the making of that particular decision, why is "not bothering to clarify" onsite the only thing between a three-day forumban and an official warning?
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Knot II » Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:41 pm
Reploid Productions wrote:Knot II wrote:Egregious flamebait?
I'd like to kindly ask for a second opinion and/or clarification regarding the above ruling.
Since it's apparent in Reploid's post that behind-the-scenes and offsite information was used in the making of that particular decision, why is "not bothering to clarify" onsite the only thing between a three-day forumban and an official warning?
You are unfortunately mistaken: offsite information was not involved in my earlier post. Although offsite material was brought to our attention, the ruling (both mine about the posts and Cog's about the subject of the report) have been based entirely and only on the material available on-site.
[12:18 AM] Knot: No worries, I have better kicking rates when there are more defenders.
[12:20 AM] Chingis Otchigin: Knot's hammer is splash damage konfirmed
by Reploid Productions » Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:42 pm
Knot II wrote:Reploid Productions wrote:You are unfortunately mistaken: offsite information was not involved in my earlier post. Although offsite material was brought to our attention, the ruling (both mine about the posts and Cog's about the subject of the report) have been based entirely and only on the material available on-site.
Going off of the fact that the only piece of onsite evidence we have is the posted screenshot, can I ask where "posting for a DoS player" came from?
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: -Singapura-
Advertisement