StarGateWars Forums

Gobble wrote:


I hope you get banned just for trying to defend those statements.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Gobble wrote:

~Tziki~ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Führer wrote:

CC90 wrote: P.S etl is a jew just saying

He does have a point, fire up the ovens boysss

I seem to remember certain stipulations explained to you when you originally plastered swastika's all over your account, that any reference to the holocaust, gas, or other elements would result in a ban.

CC90 wrote:

Führer wrote:

CC90 wrote: P.S etl is a jew just saying

He does have a point, fire up the ovens boysss

Shower time am I right

Both of you need to grow up, your current line of conversation is pathetic at best. I had assumed both of you were more intelligent than this, perhaps I was mistaken.

Any further reference to the above, by anybody, directly or indirectly will not end well.

I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

I hope you get banned just for trying to defend those statements.

Tbf kev is correct we wherent saying anything about it all Anti said was get the oven on for the BBQ we where having and i said i needed a shower 1st spamming an already spamed war thread

I apologised for my words used like a**wipe n s*it so yeah let's go to making this a nice clean slaughter of OE ehh gentle bits

Huxley wrote:

Andy! wrote:

Huxley wrote:Not a single defense in Judgement.

Not a single hit on OA in the last 24hours.

Plenty of defences in Judgement...

I think you're accidently checking OA's outgoing logs... Mind you if you're not building you won't have any incoming

You're right, I stand corrected...

The forces of ~Odin~ fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 33,595,189,958 damage on Huxley's forces!

[spoiler]Rest of Judgement off PPT...

The forces of *2LEGIT2QUIT fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of CC90 fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 6 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of BigWilco fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of ~Jason~ fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of Malasorte fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of Bjorn fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 6 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of *The Shadow fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Huxley's forces!
The forces of *~wilco~ fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Huxley's forces!

Defenses come and go, I'm sure you'll return the favour.[/spoiler]

RustyJizzBucket uses its Nuclear Volley to inflict 10,348,000,000,000 damage, destroying 102,435 Energy Shields on Cuts Through Your MS!
The Mothership has exhausted all of its offensive power.

Cuts Through Your MS uses its Energy Volley to inflict 21,342,750,000,000 damage, destroying 69,376 Energy Shields on RustyJizzBucket!
Blowing through the extended shield defenses, it also destroyed 166,400 Nuclear Volley, and downed 0 fleets!
The forces of EnterTheLion fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 13,969,436,314,600 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of Huxley fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 393,300,000,000 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces

This is what you build? At least you're putting in a mil UU unlike most of your alliance mates

[spoiler]The forces of red1_minshu fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of Arkenius fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of the boogeyman fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 6 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of Duradel fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 3 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!


The forces of mcdeadly fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 5 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of *turkey_junior fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 6 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of *Sangraal fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 807,552,000,000 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of eviscerate fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 6 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of Snakekeeper fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 113,749,362,574 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!


The forces of Turkey fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 151,200,730,051 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!

The forces of obluette fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 183,654,179,820 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces!




RustyJizzBucket uses its Nuclear Volley to inflict 10,348,000,000,000 damage, destroying 168 Energy Shields on Cuts Through Your MS!
Blowing through the extended shield defenses, it also destroyed 1 Energy Volley, and totally destroyed 0 fleets!
Skeleton Crew's RustyJizzBucket adds 10,310,179,125,000 additional attack onto their ground troops!

The forces of EnterTheLion fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 6 damage on Skeleton Crew's forces![/spoiler]


Not taking credit for all the work, only ran through ETL and Wukong's stats myself, but shameful people like eviscerate are happy to clean up 100M spies but won't even build a defence.

Gobble wrote:[spoiler]

~Tziki~ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Führer wrote:

CC90 wrote: P.S etl is a jew just saying

He does have a point, fire up the ovens boysss

I seem to remember certain stipulations explained to you when you originally plastered swastika's all over your account, that any reference to the holocaust, gas, or other elements would result in a ban.

CC90 wrote:

Führer wrote:

CC90 wrote: P.S etl is a jew just saying

He does have a point, fire up the ovens boysss

Shower time am I right

Both of you need to grow up, your current line of conversation is pathetic at best. I had assumed both of you were more intelligent than this, perhaps I was mistaken.

Any further reference to the above, by anybody, directly or indirectly will not end well.

I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

[/spoiler]



I hope you get banned just for trying to defend those statements.

A statement without context, is just a statement. Clock is the person that added context to the statement, and therefore is the one responsible for giving them the negative meaning. So in reality, the only person here that has actually referenced the holocaust directly, is the hypocrite trying to flex warning players about it.

if i said "i like little girls"

it has no context, what are the little girls doing, in what way do i like them etc etc
the sick bastards in here might fill in the blanks, and assume the worst. But thats their doing now mine

~Tziki~ wrote:
I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Hmmm, no.

The post was reported as being offensive in nature regarding the holocaust, I reviewed the posts, I could see how offense could have been taken. If I were to have let my ties to OE cloud my judgement as you say, I would have simply deleted the posts and issued bans before returning to something more interesting like watching paint dry underwater. What I did do is posted a verbal warning to cease the insults/line of conversation and referred the posts to support to review. THEN I went back to the more interesting paint.

If you wish to discuss the moderation any further, you are more than welcome to use the appropriate forum.

SHOTS FIRED

~Tziki~ wrote:I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Your argument is completely flawed. Let me put it into context you'll understand (presuming your background is the same as when we last spoke).

Person A wears a top with a swastika on their person, but does not believe it is in any shape or form offensive.

Person B on the other hand does find it offensive, and evidence would suggest a person of reasonable firmness would also find it offensive (such is the case here).

Person A would be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 (England & Wales).

Let's use some common sense, a jury (even CPS) would see straight through these posts, they've been posted to cause a reaction, which in turn obviously some people have felt harassed, distressed or alarmed.

On the other hand to counter argue, it does suggest in the sub section description and I quote: "Content guidelines are applied less stringently."
Moderators discretion.

Work mode: off. SGW mode: on - "you're a bellend"

Huxley wrote:

~Tziki~ wrote:I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Your argument is completely flawed. Let me put it into context you'll understand (presuming your background is the same as when we last spoke).

Person A wears a top with a swastika on their person, but does not believe it is in any shape or form offensive.

Person B on the other hand does find it offensive, and evidence would suggest a person of reasonable firmness would also find it offensive (such is the case here).

Person A would be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 (England & Wales).

Let's use some common sense, a jury (even CPS) would see straight through these posts, they've been posted to cause a reaction, which in turn obviously some people have felt harassed, distressed or alarmed.

On the other hand to counter argue, it does suggest in the sub section description and I quote: "Content guidelines are applied less stringently."
Moderators discretion.

Work mode: off. SGW mode: on - "you're a bellend"

"you're a bellend"

Drahazar wrote:

Huxley wrote:

~Tziki~ wrote:I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Your argument is completely flawed. Let me put it into context you'll understand (presuming your background is the same as when we last spoke).

Person A wears a top with a swastika on their person, but does not believe it is in any shape or form offensive.

Person B on the other hand does find it offensive, and evidence would suggest a person of reasonable firmness would also find it offensive (such is the case here).

Person A would be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 (England & Wales).

Let's use some common sense, a jury (even CPS) would see straight through these posts, they've been posted to cause a reaction, which in turn obviously some people have felt harassed, distressed or alarmed.

On the other hand to counter argue, it does suggest in the sub section description and I quote: "Content guidelines are applied less stringently."
Moderators discretion.

Work mode: off. SGW mode: on - "you're a bellend"

"you're a bellend"

"you're a bellend"

Huxley wrote:

~Tziki~ wrote:I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Your argument is completely flawed. Let me put it into context you'll understand (presuming your background is the same as when we last spoke).

Person A wears a top with a swastika on their person, but does not believe it is in any shape or form offensive.

Person B on the other hand does find it offensive, and evidence would suggest a person of reasonable firmness would also find it offensive (such is the case here).

Person A would be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 (England & Wales).

Let's use some common sense, a jury (even CPS) would see straight through these posts, they've been posted to cause a reaction, which in turn obviously some people have felt harassed, distressed or alarmed.

On the other hand to counter argue, it does suggest in the sub section description and I quote: "Content guidelines are applied less stringently."
Moderators discretion.

Work mode: off. SGW mode: on - "you're a bellend"

Boom Roasted

Huxley wrote:

~Tziki~ wrote:I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Your argument is completely flawed. Let me put it into context you'll understand (presuming your background is the same as when we last spoke).

Person A wears a top with a swastika on their person, but does not believe it is in any shape or form offensive.

Person B on the other hand does find it offensive, and evidence would suggest a person of reasonable firmness would also find it offensive (such is the case here).

Person A would be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 (England & Wales).

Let's use some common sense, a jury (even CPS) would see straight through these posts, they've been posted to cause a reaction, which in turn obviously some people have felt harassed, distressed or alarmed.

On the other hand to counter argue, it does suggest in the sub section description and I quote: "Content guidelines are applied less stringently."
Moderators discretion.

Work mode: off. SGW mode: on - "you're a bellend"

On the contrary, the swastika is a religious symbol used by many different religions across several dynasties. One such example is in Hinduism, where the right-hand swastika is a symbol of the God Vishnu and the Sun, while the left-hand swastika is a symbol of Kali and Magic.

So you will find that the European Convention on Human Rights dictates that you may wear religious symbols in public and cannot be descriminated against for doing so. and further more Section 5, of the Public Order Act 1986 was further ammended by Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which removed from the racially or religiously aggravated version of the section 5 Public Order Act offence. Thereby religious expression is excempt. The amendment enhances the protection of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Words or behaviour that are merely 'insulting', or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible representations which are merely 'insulting', within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, will no longer constitute a criminal offence under section 5(1).

Furthermore Person B would therefore be open to charges of harassment, or common law assault (as opposed to battery, since assault is non physical).

However your incorrect scenario still has no bearing on the above. Anyone that took offence did so on their own assumption of how to interpret the comment as opposed to reading a non contextual statement that was infront of them for all to see. So in truth, it is entirely possible the parties here are feeling victimised and harassed by the false accusations, and therefore those that are attempting to dictate what the individuals true intentions where should be the ones to recieve bans for harassing other members.


On another note. Your still a mophead.

Very well done Kev. Huxley better keep your hair clean mop up on isle two

~Tziki~ wrote:

Huxley wrote:

~Tziki~ wrote:I would remind you not to let your ties to OE cloud your judgement (ha JUDGEMENT...)

Regardless of what is said, it was your own mind that filled in the blanks and directly associated those words with the holocaust etc
As you have no way of proving what was INTENDED, you can only attest to what is written, and the only one that related what was said to historical events was yourself. Therefore, please head your own warning and refrain from associating such words to historical actions.

Your argument is completely flawed. Let me put it into context you'll understand (presuming your background is the same as when we last spoke).

Person A wears a top with a swastika on their person, but does not believe it is in any shape or form offensive.

Person B on the other hand does find it offensive, and evidence would suggest a person of reasonable firmness would also find it offensive (such is the case here).

Person A would be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 (England & Wales).

Let's use some common sense, a jury (even CPS) would see straight through these posts, they've been posted to cause a reaction, which in turn obviously some people have felt harassed, distressed or alarmed.

On the other hand to counter argue, it does suggest in the sub section description and I quote: "Content guidelines are applied less stringently."
Moderators discretion.

Work mode: off. SGW mode: on - "you're a bellend"

On the contrary, the swastika is a religious symbol used by many different religions across several dynasties. One such example is in Hinduism, where the right-hand swastika is a symbol of the God Vishnu and the Sun, while the left-hand swastika is a symbol of Kali and Magic.

So you will find that the European Convention on Human Rights dictates that you may wear religious symbols in public and cannot be descriminated against for doing so. and further more Section 5, of the Public Order Act 1986 was further ammended by Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which removed from the racially or religiously aggravated version of the section 5 Public Order Act offence. Thereby religious expression is excempt. The amendment enhances the protection of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Words or behaviour that are merely 'insulting', or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible representations which are merely 'insulting', within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, will no longer constitute a criminal offence under section 5(1).

Furthermore Person B would therefore be open to charges of harassment, or common law assault (as opposed to battery, since assault is non physical).

However your incorrect scenario still has no bearing on the above. Anyone that took offence did so on their own assumption of how to interpret the comment as opposed to reading a non contextual statement that was infront of them for all to see. So in truth, it is entirely possible the parties here are feeling victimised and harassed by the false accusations, and therefore those that are attempting to dictate what the individuals true intentions where should be the ones to recieve bans for harassing other members.


On another note. Your still a mophead.

Damn well said. Where is Flint when you need him

SHOTS FIRED!!!!

To weigh in..

All this round-talking spin is irrelevant. 'Intent' is irrelevant.
Whatever story you ralph up to legitimise this inane trolling is irrelevant, but that is all it is, trolling.
Verbal diarrhoea is an embarrassment, not an accomplishment. Get over it.


Any judgment call on this falls entirely within moderator discretion. On that note, Clockwork has my full support.



Also, love you idiots.

Support wrote:To weigh in..

All this round-talking spin is irrelevant. 'Intent' is irrelevant.
Whatever story you ralph up to legitimise this inane trolling is irrelevant, but that is all it is, trolling.
Verbal diarrhoea is an embarrassment, not an accomplishment. Get over it.


Any judgment call on this falls entirely within moderator discretion. On that note, Clockwork has my full support.



Also, love you idiots.

Love you to