General
10 Sep 05
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by shavixmirSalem witches, if there were any, were victims of superstitious religious zealots fighting against an evil that didn't exist.
That some rules of the TOS can be broken and others cannot (hypocrisy).
The whole witchhunt attitude.
Personally, yes, I think people can cheat if they want. But THAT is not what this is about.
The difference here is game engines do exist and so cheating is not beyond the realm of possibility, and the cheat hunters have real cheats to hunt.
the standardin RHP is "beyond a reasonable doubt ". Salem had no standard of proof , it was simply accusation followed by torture until you confessed.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2Obviously your reasoning is the one that is superficial; the law sets certain age limits on allowable behavior based on the accepted societial conclusion that children are too immature to participate in certain activities. Voting is a good example where people of Angie's age are considered to not have sufficient reasoning skills to be entrusted with such an important civic duty. If you believe that is "narrow minded", then you believe the laws in virtually all democracies are currently narrow-minded in this matter.
The shoo fits?
Some 'adults' on this site have proven that they can act as childlishly as some -14 kids.
How can you validate a claim like the one you are making here? I would agree with 'some', 'many' even, but a generalisation like this is plainly narrowminded. I hope you are not that superficial in your profession.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOh but No1, I really think it is provided for. In Verse 6.3 of the gospel according to St. Russ, it clearly states that:
I am asserting that calling someone a "pathetic fool" does not violate any provision of the TOS; there is nothing about insults in the TOS.
...Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;...
Let me pick up my trusted Thesaurus here:
Abuse: 1. Damage, expoit, har, hurt, illtreat, injure, matreat, mar, misapply, misuse, opress, spoil, wrong. 2. curse, defame, disparage, insult, libel, malign, rev...
I don't really need to go on. Obviously abusive behaviour includes insulting others. And EVEN IF IT DIDN'T...OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE...includes everything and anything someone doesn't like being said about them.
As the proper fundamentalist you are, you obviously agree with me now. If you don't however and suggest that it's down to 'interpretation'....well...that's a whole new can of worms then, isn't it?
If one rule is interpretable...then they all are.
😀
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderApparently you lack them too. I will quote this from shavi one page earlier:
Another sign of immaturity, you lack solid reading comprehension skills. I am asserting that calling someone a "pathetic fool" does not violate any provision of the TOS; there is nothing about insults in the TOS. However, continually posting public accusations against cheating now that there are Game Mods has been specifically singled out by Russ as un ...[text shortened]... onclusion that public accusations of cheating are a violation of the TOS. Now do you understand?
...Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;...
I could not care less whether you cheat or not, you're leaving (imho the sooner the better) this site anyway... I think I'm not alone in thinking that what good you have done the community by analyzing and alerting cheats is revoked and even overridden by the damage you cause to the community in the forums.
I will definately not be sad to see you leave.
11 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderArrakis did say: "No need to follow this game anymore. Black OBVIOUSLY used Fritz to play this game! "
People who have done the analysis, like Arrakis, might object to your constant, false claim that Arrakis' analysis showed I matched up 96% in this game THAT I LOST.
and you were White. weren't you?
11 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by angie88[/b]I have to disagree with you there Angie.
Apparently you lack them too. I will quote this from shavi one page earlier:
...Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, [b]abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable[ ...[text shortened]... damage you cause to the community in the forums.
I will definately not be sad to see you leave.
I seriously think that No1 is completely wrong on this issue on various levels, but I'd hate to see him leave the site.
On many other issues he's witty, amusing and literate.
He is on this issue as well. He's just wrong. Anybody can be wrong.
Like I wouldn't send a cheater away, I would not argue to send another TOS breaker away either. That would be hypocrisy on my part.
I, for one, want No1 to stay. Even if it was just to argue with him.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by shavixmirRules that are interpretable are meant to be interpreted; rules that are unambiguous are not meant to be interpreted. The rules covered in Section 3 banning engine use and multiple accounts are not meant to be interpreted as there is no interpretation necessary or possible. The rules regarding Forum behavior in Section 6 are interpreted by the Forum Mods as they are vague and capable of differing interpretations. I do not consider an insult directed at another user as "abusive" under the TOS as they are routinely allowed in the Forums. By contrast, engine use is NEVER allowed. See the diference?
Oh but No1, I really think it is provided for. In Verse 6.3 of the gospel according to St. Russ, it clearly states that:
...Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, [b]abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnical ...[text shortened]... le new can of worms then, isn't it?
If one rule is interpretable...then they all are.
😀[/b]
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderClap, clap, clap ... So, Angie, and all other <18 year old people can never make a meanigful contribution to whatever topic, provided they disagree with you, BECAUSE OF "the accepted societial conclusion that children are too immature to participate in certain activities". I understand now why you didn't react on the 'hypochrisy'-part of my reply.
Obviously your reasoning is the one that is superficial; the law sets certain age limits on allowable behavior based on the accepted societial conclusion that children are too immature to participate in certain activities. Voting is a good example where people of Angie's age are considered to not have sufficient reasoning skills to be entrusted with suc ...[text shortened]... en you believe the laws in virtually all democracies are currently narrow-minded in this matter.
No need to reply, this is what I had to say.
11 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by angie88As pointed out earlier, I don't care what a self-involved, teenage brat thinks. As for my alleged violation of the TOS, have an adult read you my post above and explain it to you.
[b/]Apparently you lack them too. I will quote this from shavi one page earlier:
...Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable ...[text shortened]... damage you cause to the community in the forums.
I will definately not be sad to see you leave.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2I fail to see any "hypocrisy" on my part, but see ya.
Clap, clap, clap ... So, Angie, and all other <18 year old people can never make a meanigful contribution to whatever topic, provided they disagree with you, BECAUSE OF "the accepted societial conclusion that children are too immature to participate in certain activities". I understand now why you didn't react on the 'hypochrisy'-part of my reply.
No need to reply, this is what I had to say.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAh. So you're saying that people in my class, who I hang out with every day (and I know that by most "grownups" I'm considered mature for my age), so you're saying that these people, who with one exception, are ALL much more mature than me, in fact so much that they will be allowed to vote in 7 days, while I obviously, being a year younger than most people in my year, am so immature I'm not aloud to have an opinion. Did I get you right? One year makes all the difference? I turn 18, and *snap*, suddenly I'm all mature?
Obviously your reasoning is the one that is superficial; the law sets certain age limits on allowable behavior based on the accepted societial conclusion that children are too immature to participate in certain activities. Voting is a good example where people of Angie's age are considered to not have sufficient reasoning skills to be entrusted with suc ...[text shortened]... en you believe the laws in virtually all democracies are currently narrow-minded in this matter.
Who's reasoning is superficial here?
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOh pray tell...how, if not insulting (or abusive or otherwise objectionable), how should I interpret: "You pathetic fool"?
Rules that are interpretable are meant to be interpreted; rules that are unambiguous are not meant to be interpreted. The rules covered in Section 3 banning engine use and multiple accounts are not meant to be interpreted as there is no interpretation necessary or possible. The rules regarding Forum behavior in Section 6 are interpreted by the Forum Mods ...[text shortened]... re routinely allowed in the Forums. By contrast, engine use is NEVER allowed. See the diference?
See?
If there are nuances in this, then there are also nuances in alleged engine use.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by shavixmirPlease try to read my post sober, if that is ever possible. Could you explain the "nuances of engine use"?
Oh pray tell...how, if not insulting (or abusive or otherwise objectionable), how should I interpret: "You pathetic fool"?
See?
If there are nuances in this, then there are also nuances in alleged engine use.