Page 14 of 25
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:06 pm
by Lord Azmodan
gregort77 wrote:Yeah but throwing an insult at an insult is sorta like trying to put a fire at gasoline.
who threw and insult at an insult ... i know i didnt ...
telling someone to STHU is not an insult ...
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:09 pm
by Lord Azmodan
Nuto vixen wrote:Lord Azmodan wrote:and how many people was i saying that to ... yeah just 1 ...
and if i am not mistaken she insulted my intelligence and decided that she would judge me on what she does not know ..
You told EVERYONE that you didn't know what was going on.
So, going by that, I'm asking you what you DO know, and you get all huffy and start spouting abuse like that. Soon you may have a ban of your very own.
I wonder who will be around to post on your behalf.
yeah i didnt know and didnt care what was going on ...
if you were asking what i knew about what was all going on in this thread you could have worded your post a bit better then ...
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:15 am
by Clarkey
Lord Azmodan wrote:again ... i dont care what all went on ... i am just posting for him like he asked me to do ... yeah friends do favors for friends ... get over it ...
If he really considered you a friend then he wouldn't have used his position as a friend to ask you to post on his behalf when he knew full well what he had done and the problems that could arise from you posting his messages.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:15 am
by captain_jack
for those who dot know what defamation of character is
Defamation of character is notoriously difficult to prove in court, although the actual effects can be quite evident and damaging. If a disgruntled customer of a restaurant tells numerous people that the head chef has AIDS, for example, sales for that restaurant could fall and the employee might lose his job or find it difficult to work. Because the customer's slanderous statement concerns a specific person and an unproven accusation, the chef may have a legitimate case of defamation of character.
therefore what they did was Illegal
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:29 am
by Apocalypse
captain_jack wrote:for those who dot know what defamation of character is
Defamation of character is notoriously difficult to prove in court, although the actual effects can be quite evident and damaging. If a disgruntled customer of a restaurant tells numerous people that the head chef has AIDS, for example, sales for that restaurant could fall and the employee might lose his job or find it difficult to work. Because the customer's slanderous statement concerns a specific person and an unproven accusation, the chef may have a legitimate case of defamation of character.
therefore what they did was Illegal
Falwell V s Flynt is a good case of this.
because of the campari ad being so outrageous a regular person who knew falwell could not reasonably believe it to be true, so it was not defamation of character but simply satire. in a nut shell.
in this case many believe (but maybe not all) that the admin would have no such site that contained information from ingame PMs he was selling. so odds are good that this is not truly defamation of character however it still remains largely unacceptable to the SGW community as funny. not that it being unfunny has any bearing on defamation of character.
to prove defamation of character one has to to demonstrate that it damaged the reputation and livelyhood of the person being accused. such as loss of income/employment, divorce, etc. things that truly hurt a person's life.
but this is a civil matter, not criminal, at best the most he could do is sue for damages.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:40 am
by Solus
~Onslaught~ wrote:captain_jack wrote:for those who dot know what defamation of character is
Defamation of character is notoriously difficult to prove in court, although the actual effects can be quite evident and damaging. If a disgruntled customer of a restaurant tells numerous people that the head chef has AIDS, for example, sales for that restaurant could fall and the employee might lose his job or find it difficult to work. Because the customer's slanderous statement concerns a specific person and an unproven accusation, the chef may have a legitimate case of defamation of character.
therefore what they did was Illegal
Falwell V s Flynt is a good case of this.
because of the campari ad being so outrageous a regular person who knew falwell could not reasonably believe it to be true, so it was not defamation of character but simply satire. in a nut shell.
in this case many believe (but maybe not all) that the admin would have no such site that contained information from ingame PMs he was selling. so odds are good that this is not truly defamation of character however it still remains largely unacceptable to the SGW community as funny. not that it being unfunny has any bearing on defamation of character.
to prove defamation of character one has to to demonstrate that it damaged the reputation and livelyhood of the person being accused. such as loss of income/employment, divorce, etc. things that truly hurt a person's life.
but this is a civil matter, not criminal, at best the most he could do is sue for damages.
regardless, personal information was leaked, which also directly defies the privacy policies, which bears legal ramifications also. Both angles present legal issues.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:43 am
by Apocalypse
.:SOULLESS:. wrote:
regardless, personal information was leaked, which also directly defies the privacy policies, which bears legal ramifications also.
well the address leak is a separate issue and should be IMO, dealt with harshly. that just went beyond a joke to revealing private information to a lot of people who had no right to it. however i am unsure as the illegal ramifications, if any, there are for that. i know nothing about privacy laws, especially internet privacy laws. i wont even take a guess.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:39 am
by Solus
~Onslaught~ wrote:.:SOULLESS:. wrote:
regardless, personal information was leaked, which also directly defies the privacy policies, which bears legal ramifications also.
well the address leak is a separate issue and should be IMO, dealt with harshly. that just went beyond a joke to revealing private information to a lot of people who had no right to it. however i am unsure as the illegal ramifications, if any, there are for that. i know nothing about privacy laws, especially internet privacy laws. i wont even take a guess.
agreed, this does need to be dealt with harshly.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:52 am
by Nimras
Right to end this argument:
e. Posting for banned users.
Posting for banned users is too hard for the moderators to police and as such is permitted; however if you post for a banned user you take full responsibility for the content posted.
Consequence:
Should the content breach any rule then the consequences will be applied to the account posting the content, not the account it was posted for.
Now the rules stays and will stay like that as if someone choose to post for a friend let them. But as you will notice if he post for a friend which post breaks the other rules we give the warning and ultimate if enough happens both for the post in his own name or post in his friends get banned.
And i ask all to talk about the issue at hand and not about breaking a rule that arent being broken.
Nimras
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:48 am
by Wolf359
Lord Azmodan wrote:gregort77 wrote:Yeah but throwing an insult at an insult is sorta like trying to put a fire at gasoline.
who threw and insult at an insult ... i know i didnt ...
telling someone to STHU is not an insult ...
Maybe not to you, but it is intimating profanity, and profanity is not allowed on the forum:
b. Profanity
The use of profanity on the SGW forums is prohibited at all times. This means swearing, cursing and vulgarity. This includes the use of masking. SGW is a family orientated game and as such the language used must be suitable for children.
Therefore consider yourself warned.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:22 am
by captain_jack
ok lets bring this back on topic which was whether or not almost38 should be banned in game
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:46 am
by Wolf359
captain_jack wrote:ok lets bring this back on topic which was whether or not almost38 should be banned in game
I don't believe that is the actual topic for discussion (not judging by Semper's initial post anyway) - it's more of a general discussion regarding the April Fool's 'prank'.
But you're right - it was getting off-track in some parts! 
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:37 am
by semper
yes, ones original post was aimed more at a few lines of...
"Well it got/did not get me, I thought it was good/bad and those who got banned should/shouldnt have because....I love/hate Jason..." yadda yadda yadda...
The entire topic was not aimed solely at any individual, more the prank as a whole. Its also a chance for any and all who did know about it, to come and suck up to the angered members of the community..
Personally i was over the entire ordeal before I posted this thread.
If anyone is still mad/concerned now I suggest you go buy a pair on non-bunching panties.
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:40 am
by captain_jack
it just seems like almost is getting off lightly in my opinion
Re: The Aftermath....
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:41 am
by semper
well then go sit on his account...