Interpreting the Terms of Service [Lord Condormanius vs. Exarch]

[Exarch]

All this has been moved from the Tribunal commentary thread...

A comment on Exarch's latest example in his defense...

1. Suggesting that Jesus would be killed if he were to come back to earth today is not even close to being the same thing as advocating the assassination of Mr. Harper.

BS
mind explaining how it's 'not even close'?
no? why havent you?
because you cant!

if jesus comes back, we'll kill him again

is still advocating, what you and Astaroth consider 'assassination' and hence an illegal act.
some individuals do believe jesus will come back but that's irrelevant; killing someone claiming to be 'jesus' is still murder/assassination and 'promoting illegal activites' but according to you, it doesnt.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Lord Condormanius is being selective in his interpretation of the ToS, as it fits him.

2. Advocating the assassination of anyone is not protected as free speech anywhere, as far as I know. This situation is not, in any way, an example of political correctness assailing free speech.

well then! as oswald has pointed out, we must arrest the characters on a soap opera for conspiring to murder a fellow character!!
sorry, pal, we're not Adam West:

The examples he has provided are completely irrelevant

BS
you say that and yet you cant even explain why

[Lord Condormanius]

mind explaining how it's 'not even close'?

No problem, although you should be able to figure it out for yourself as it is fairly simple. Stating that humankind would probably execute Jesus if he were to return is a pessimistic commentary on the indifference of humankind. It is not advocating assassination of Jesus. Read the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. It might make things a little bit clearer for you.

is still advocating, what you and Astaroth consider 'assassination' and hence an illegal act.

No. It isn't advocating at all. Making a statement of a hypothetical likelihood is not the same as advocating.

killing someone claiming to be 'jesus' is still murder/assassination and 'promoting illegal activites' but according to you, it doesnt.

We're not talking about killing someone claiming to be Jesus. We are saying that if Jesus (the actual Jesus, not a pretender) were to come back, we would probably find a reason to have him executed. Again, read the Dostoevsky.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Lord Condormanius is being selective in his interpretation of the ToS, as it fits him.

I'm being selective because I can tell the difference between advocating murder and a hypothetical musing? Interesting.

well then! as oswald has pointed out, we must arrest the characters on a soap opera for conspiring to murder a fellow character!!

Characters on a soap opera are not real people, but I'm sure you already knew that.

you say that and yet you cant even explain why

Perhaps that is because most people do not require an in-depth explanation of such a simple concept.

EDIT
As far as Magic Man is concerned, I can go either way with it. On the one hand, it was a joke. On the other hand, it was not funny. I could definitely understand the frustrations of the Tribunal members when trying to deal with someone who constantly thumbs his nose at any and all forms of "authority" (for lack of a better word) on TWC. It was in bad taste for Magic Man to try a joke like that in the Tribunal. I can certainly see that the Tribunal members may have felt they were being mocked. At the very least, it shows his complete lack of respect for the Tribunal.

Also, this is the very first time that I have seen the Tribunal ask for an infraction to be handed out for offenses within the Tribunal itself, something that should happen far more often in my opinion. They are generally very lenient in this area. On that basis, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Exarch]

No problem, although you should be able to figure it out for yourself as it is fairly simple. Stating that humankind would probably execute Jesus if he were to return is a pessimistic commentary on the indifference of humankind. It is not advocating assassination of Jesus. Read the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. It might make things a little bit clearer for you.

perhaps my quote was also a pessimistic commentary on the indifference of humankind?
people also believe that the spirit of jesus (TM) will be 'reincarnated' in a second coming; advocating 'if jesus comes back we'll kill him again' is still advocating the assassination of a human being, simply one who claims to be jesus.
In fact, givn how many people in south america are named Jesus, the quote can also be used as an endorsement of the murder of some poor bloke who happened to have the name Jesus.

No. It isn't advocating at all. Making a statement of a hypothetical likelihood is not the same as advocating.

and my statement wasnt also a 'hypothetical likelyhood'?
clearly, you are being selective in your interpretation of the ToS to suit your own petty desires, since you totally disregarded

Overthrow? Meh, double-tap in the head should fix it, then a large guard for Tshangarei (sp?) and then, on to Somalia!

and also, clandestino's:

Yes, we go around and kill Hungarians for sport...I'll first go to my University and kill all my ethnic Hungarian professors, including my menthor, then I'll go and kill all my Hungaian friends including the ones I know from kindergarten, then I will go to our provincial Parliament and kill all Hungarian MPs including the president of Parliament of Vojvodina, then I will go to our state parliament and kill all Hungarian MPs there ( more then 10 of them if I'm not mistaken) then I'll kill all the ethnic Hungarian city mayors in Vojvodina ( like dozen of them ) and when I'm all true I'll go to Hungary and finish the job once for all...[@moderators:sarcasm]

source:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...04#post4109504
Since you say that the 'i was joking/being non serious' defence cant be used as a defence, the above individuals would also be infracted; and if we're going to apply your literalist interpretation of the ToS, you yourself would be infracted for 'promoting illegal activites':

Encouraging or advocating an illegal activity, or portraying it as normal or acceptable (e.g., casually mentioning that you have pirated games/smoked pot/etc. as though this were normal and acceptable).

On a more serious note, I don't care for cocaine. I tried it once...8 years ago...and all it managed to do was kill the buzz I had been drinking for 9 hours to develop and leave a rotten taste in the back of my throat. Never again for me.

source: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...98#post4080598
By your own literalist interpretation of the ToS, you have violated the article on 'promoting illegal activites' by casually saying you have snorted blow (and you imply pot as well in the same thread) as though this were normal and acceptable.
In fact given that Cocaine is an illegal substance, you have just advocated commiting a crime (endorsed it in fact by treating it as though it were normal to try it once) and by your own literalist interpretation of the ToS, you should be given an 8 point infraction and 3 day suspension and the police authorities should be notified.

We're not talking about killing someone claiming to be Jesus. We are saying that if Jesus (the actual Jesus, not a pretender) were to come back, we would probably find a reason to have him executed. Again, read the Dostoevsky.

it's still advocating the murder/assassination of a human being, pal.

I'm being selective because I can tell the difference between advocating murder and a hypothetical musing? Interesting.

you're being selective in choosing to see a post made by a poster constituting a grave threat to the life of Canadian PM, and people advocating the death of someone for being named 'Jesus'.
Yes, you are being hypocritically selective.

[Lord Condormanius]

perhaps my quote was also a pessimistic commentary on the indifference of humankind?

It clearly was not.

people also believe that the spirit of jesus (TM) will be 'reincarnated' in a second coming;

So what?

advocating 'if jesus comes back we'll kill him again' is still advocating the assassination of a human being, simply one who claims to be jesus.

Nobody is advocating anything in the referenced statement. Do you know what advocating means?

In fact, givn how many people in south america are named Jesus, the quote can also be used as an endorsement of the murder of some poor bloke who happened to have the name Jesus.

and my statement wasnt also a 'hypothetical likelyhood'?

No, it was not.

clearly, you are being selective in your interpretation of the ToS to suit your own petty desires, since you totally disregarded

I don't see how that has anything at all to do with your case.

and also, clandestino's:

source:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...04#post4109504

I am not familiar with the context in which this post was made. Regardless, it is irrelevant to your case.

and if we're going to apply your literalist interpretation of the ToS, you yourself would be infracted for 'promoting illegal activites':

source: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...98#post4080598
By your own literalist interpretation of the ToS, you have violated the article on 'promoting illegal activites' by casually saying you have snorted blow (and you imply pot as well in the same thread) as though this were normal and acceptable.

You could not be more wrong. Discussion of drug use within the context of a thread about legalization is not promoting illegal activities. Try again, please.

In fact given that Cocaine is an illegal substance, you have just advocated commiting a crime (endorsed it in fact by treating it as though it were normal to try it once) and by your own literalist interpretation of the ToS, you should be given an 8 point infraction and 3 day suspension

You have no idea what you are talking about. Mentioning that I tried cocaine 8 years ago and did not like it is not advocating committing a crime, or whatever the hell you are saying. I seriously do not think you know what the word means.

and the police authorities should be notified.

HAHAHAHA!!! You think the police are going to charge me with a crime for admitting that I once tried cocaine 8 years ago and did not like it? HAHAHAHA!!! If you are so concerned about that, you should probably notify them yourself. I would be interested to hear what they say to you.

it's still advocating the murder/assassination of a human being, pal.

No, it's not, pal. Again, you do not seem to know what it means to "advocate" something.

you're being selective in choosing to see a post made by a poster constituting a grave threat to the life of Canadian PM, and people advocating the death of someone for being named 'Jesus'.
Yes, you are being hypocritically selective.

Seriously, man...this is unreal. Do you seriously not know what advocating means? There is absolutely no similarity in the two statements...none. Somebody please help me explain this to this guy. I can't be the only one here who understands this, can I?

[Exarch]

It clearly was not.

So what?

Nobody is advocating anything in the referenced statement. Do you know what advocating means??

Advocate:

1.to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate

The statement: 'if jesus comes back we'll kill him again' , clearly speaks, writes in favour of; supporting and urging by argument, and recommending publicly the murder and assassination of a person claiming to be Jesus.
The statement advocates murder of Jesus, yet you choose not to see a ToS violation here; This is what's called 'being selective with the toS interpretation', Condormanius.
Shall we continue the english lesson?

No, it was not.

I don't see how that has anything at all to do with your case.

I am not familiar with the context in which this post was made. Regardless, it is irrelevant to your case.

alakasam's post:

Overthrow? Meh, double-tap in the head should fix it, then a large guard for Tshangarei (sp?) and then, on to Somalia

In case you're still not getting it, a double tap is british slang for firing two bullets into a person's head. This is usually fatal, hence is classified as murder/assassination. By your literalist interpretation of the ToS, Alakasam who is obviously being non serious, would also be infracted for 'promoting illegal activites'.
Clandestino's quote:

Yes, we go around and kill Hungarians for sport...I'll first go to my University and kill all my ethnic Hungarian professors, including my menthor, then I'll go and kill all my Hungaian friends including the ones I know from kindergarten, then I will go to our provincial Parliament and kill all Hungarian MPs including the president of Parliament of Vojvodina, then I will go to our state parliament and kill all Hungarian MPs there ( more then 10 of them if I'm not mistaken) then I'll kill all the ethnic Hungarian city mayors in Vojvodina ( like dozen of them ) and when I'm all true I'll go to Hungary and finish the job once for all...[@moderators:sarcasm]

Now, you've said that the defence 'i was joking/being non serious' cant apply to such statements advocating the assassination or murder of people. clandestino has just advocated genocide of hungarians yet the [@moderators:sarcasm] wouldnt apply because you firmly believe that the ToS must be upheld with no exception.

If this warning is not allowed to stand, it will send the message that this type of posting is allowed, as long as the offender says it was a joke. I am fully confident that this is not in the best interest of TWC.

source: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...89#post4099889

Well if we're going to do that, you're going to find yourself in just as much trouble as you'd like the 3 of us to be in:

You could not be more wrong. Discussion of drug use within the context of a thread about legalization is not promoting illegal activities. Try again, please.

If you're going to apply your strict fundamentalist literal reading of the ToS which which you wish to apply to me but somehow think you yourself should be exempt from, your quote:

On a more serious note, I don't care for cocaine. I tried it once...8 years ago...and all it managed to do was kill the buzz I had been drinking for 9 hours to develop and leave a rotten taste in the back of my throat. Never again for me.

source: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...98#post4080598
Now you cant use a drug unless you possess it in the first place, and by your own strict literalist reading of the ToS which you stress you wish to apply to me and yet exempt yourself from, you are in violation of ToS 1.5.10:

Posts that promote violation of the law are not allowed. Violation of the law includes, but is not limited to...Possessing, distributing, or using drugs in a way that would be illegal in most jurisdictions (e.g., owning marijuana)...Promoting" illegal activity includes, but is not limited to:...Encouraging or advocating an illegal activity, or portraying it as normal or acceptable (e.g., casually mentioning that you have pirated games/smoked pot/etc. as though this were normal and acceptable

You possessed cocaine and used it, whether or not you enjoyed it is irrelevant, you've casually mentioned it as though this were normal and acceptable, clear violations of the ToS.
In fact if we're going to apply your reaction to my 2 posts on PM Harper, we should notify the police authorities that you've possessed and used illegal drugs. By Your reaction, a 3 day suspention and 8 point infraction would be the least of your worries.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Mentioning that I tried cocaine 8 years ago and did not like it is not advocating committing a crime, or whatever the hell you are saying. I seriously do not think you know what the word means.

you admitted commiting a crime: the possession of an illegal substance (which you then 'discarded' via insufflation), violation of ToS 1.5.10.
you opined that

The circumstances under which you would call it illegal are irrelevant. Laws are not a matter of opinion. The fact is that it is illegal, as in against the law

source: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...30#post4100430
i dare say the law would take a more serious look at your possession and usage of narcotics more seriously than my 2 flippant comments on a politician i don't know. They're still fighting a war on drugs y'know.

If this is allowed to stand, if Condormanius is allowed to celebrate partying his nose away, it will send the message that this type of posting is allowed, as long as the offender says 'i didnt enjoy it'. I am fully confident that this is not in the best interest of TWC.

HAHAHAHA!!! You think the police are going to charge me with a crime for admitting that I once tried cocaine 8 years ago and did not like it? HAHAHAHA!!! If you are so concerned about that, you should probably notify them yourself. I would be interested to hear what they say to you

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
You think the police are going to charge me with these two quotes?:

assassinate him
and spay him as well

assassinate him
it works in america<shrugs>

If you're so concerned about my 'apparent threat to assassinate PM Harper', you should probably notify Canada yourself.
You just destroyed your own argument in any case.

No, it's not, pal. Again, you do not seem to know what it means to "advocate" something

.

English Comprehension #2:
Advocate:

1.to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate
'if jesus comes back we'll kill him again' , clearly speaks, writes in favour of; supporting and urging by argument, and recommending publicly the murder and assassination of a person claiming to be Jesus.
Are you finally going to admit you're being hypocritically selective in your reading of the ToS?

Seriously, man...this is unreal. Do you seriously not know what advocating means? There is absolutely no similarity in the two statements...none. Somebody please help me explain this to this guy. I can't be the only one here who understands this, can I

Seriously, man...this is unreal. Do you seriously not know what advocating means? There is absolutely no point in your arguments save a petty want to see me infracted for the most trivial things...no point at all.
Somebody please help me explain this to this guy. I can't be the only one here who understands this, can I?

[Lord Condormanius]

I'm sorry Exarch, but you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I didn't know any better...

I am tired of explaining the same simple concepts to you over and over and I am fresh out of cyanide pills...so you win, if that's what you want to hear.

[Exarch]

I'm sorry Exarch, but you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I didn't know any better...

I am tired of explaining the same simple concepts to you over and over and I am fresh out of cyanide pills...so you win, if that's what you want to hear.

try to read it aloud and slowly, it'll sink in someday
there's no need to kill yourself, that'd also be violating ToS, effectively 'murdering yourself' and you could get infracted 8 points for 'promoting illegal activites'.

EDIT: 'charlie, charlie charlie charlie, charlie, charlie, charlie charlie charlie...'

[Lord Condormanius]

The statement: 'if jesus comes back we'll kill him again' , clearly speaks, writes in favour of; supporting and urging by argument, and recommending publicly the murder and assassination of a person claiming to be Jesus.
The statement advocates murder of Jesus, yet you choose not to see a ToS violation here; This is what's called 'being selective with the toS interpretation', Condormanius.

You could not be more wrong. Every example in this post is completely ridiculous and irrelevant, but I'll just grab this one.

The statement: "if jesus [sic] comes back we'll kill him again" does not speak, write in favor of, support or urge by argument or recommend publicly anything whatsoever. It does not advocate anything at all. This is why I asked you if you understand the meaning of the word. I'm still quite convinced that may be the problem here...or something of that nature.

[Exarch]

You could not be more wrong. Every example in this post is completely ridiculous and irrelevant, but I'll just grab this one.

The statement: "if jesus [sic] comes back we'll kill him again" does not speak, write in favor of, support or urge by argument or recommend publicly anything whatsoever. It does not advocate anything at all. This is why I asked you if you understand the meaning of the word. I'm still quite convinced that may be the problem here...or something of that nature.

By your literal definition of 'advocacy of illegal acts/murder/assassination' it does;
You only choose to take a literal reading of the ToS when it suits you, you pick and choose which parts of the ToS should apply and where it shouldnt. do you understand the meaning of literal?

1.in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal

i'm convinced the problem lies more in an immature attempt to see me infracted for the most far fetched loopholes interpreted in the ToS.
Now i give you the benefit of the doubt, that you really are a ToS fundamentalist. Why is it then, that i have not heard you voicing your desire to see Alapram, clandestino and Lord Condormanius infracted for their violations of 1.5.10?

[Lord Condormanius]

By your literal definition of 'advocacy of illegal acts/murder/assassination' it does;
You only choose to take a literal reading of the ToS when it suits you, you pick and choose which parts of the ToS should apply and where it shouldnt. do you understand the meaning of literal?

I do understand the word literal. Unfortunately for your argument you are 100% incorrect. The statement about Jesus does not encourage anything at all, literally or otherwise. It is a neutral statement that is nothing more than a musing (not "amusing", but a "musing"...I don't want to take any chances here). Your statement, on the other hand, did advocate murder. This is all very interesting, because it appears that you do not understand the word, since you are not using it correctly.

I'll try to spell this out for you one more time so that you might be able to understand it. After that, I will just assume that you are trolling. This is basic stuff here, so forgive me if I seem flabbergasted by your seeming inability to comprehend it.

The statement about Jesus: "If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again."

Notice it does not say, "Kill Jesus" or "Let's kill Jesus" or "I can't wait to kill Jesus" or "Jesus should be killed" or "Let's kill somebody, as long as his name is Jesus". It takes a very old philosophical musing and repeats it. Simple. It is a hypothetical musing. Again, read the Dostoevsky if you are confused (although, I imagine I am wasting my breath here). It is not an order. It is not encouragement.

Your statement:
"assassinate him
and spay him as well"

This is what we call a command. It is a direct order. It shares absolutely no similarity with the Jesus comment.

i'm convinced the problem lies more in an immature attempt to see me infracted for the most far fetched loopholes interpreted in the ToS.

1. I'm immature? That's rich.
2. Do you really think that I care about you in any way whatsoever? Do you really think that it matters to me whether or not you are infracted by the moderators here? Do you really think I care about whether or not you ever post in this forum again? I'll save you trouble of thinking of an answer. The answer is no. I don't care anything about anything that may or may not happen to you. If someone were to tell me that Exarch was no longer at TWC, whether you quit, get banned or die, I will not care. You are of zero consequence to me. Your actions are of zero consequence to me.

Now i give you the benefit of the doubt, that you really are a ToS fundamentalist.

I am not...and your sorry effort to prove otherwise has failed miserably.

Why is it then, that i have not heard you voicing your desire to see Alapram, clandestino and Lord Condormanius infracted for their violations of 1.5.10?

First of all, I do not voice my desire to see anyone infracted. The comments that I make come after it has already been done. Secondly, of the three that you mention, I can only find one post that even slightly resembles yours, that of Alapram. The post by Clandestino makes it blatantly obvious within the post that it is a joke. It is what we call hyperbole. Lord Condormanius has not posted any violations of the ToS, regardless of your futile effort to manufacture evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, none of these posts have anything at all to do with your case. Your case is about you. It is not about Alapram, Clandestino or Lord Condormanius. This is why you will lose your Tribunal case. You cannot defend your post. All you are able to do is bring the posts of other members as examples of what else might violate the ToS. Other members' posts are entirely irrelevant to what you have posted.

[Exarch]

I do understand the word literal. Unfortunately for your argument you are 100% incorrect. The statement about Jesus does not encourage anything at all, literally or otherwise. It is a neutral statement that is nothing more than a musing (not "amusing", but a "musing"...I don't want to take any chances here). Your statement, on the other hand, did advocate murder. This is all very interesting, because it appears that you do not understand the word, since you are not using it correctly.

I'll try to spell this out for you one more time so that you might be able to understand it. After that, I will just assume that you are trolling. This is basic stuff here, so forgive me if I seem flabbergasted by your seeming inability to comprehend it.

The statement about Jesus: "If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again."

Notice it does not say, "Kill Jesus" or "Let's kill Jesus" or "I can't wait to kill Jesus" or "Jesus should be killed" or "Let's kill somebody, as long as his name is Jesus". It takes a very old philosophical musing and repeats it. Simple. It is a hypothetical musing. Again, read the Dostoevsky if you are confused (although, I imagine I am wasting my breath here). It is not an order. It is not encouragement.

Your statement:
"assassinate him
and spay him as well"

This is what we call a command. It is a direct order. It shares absolutely no similarity with the Jesus comment.

God, how is it that you've managed to come this far throughout life with such a poor grasp of the english language; english is my second language, but apparently i'm doing much better than you.
the jesus quote is still, by your literal definition, an advocacy of the murder of another human being. did i say literal? whether or not my quotes were a command (tho, who'd issue a command with the non serious afterthought '<shrug> works in america' ?)

1. I'm immature? That's rich.

yes, i'd say it's immature wanting me infracted for such an unrealistic literalistic interpretation of a loophole in the ToS, yet not wanting yourself infracted if we were to apply the selfsame unrealistic literalistic interpretation of the ToS upon you.
You have displayed your hypocrisy foir all to see here anywayz, condormanius, and besides you destroyed your own argument pages back. <clap><clap<clap>
'charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie .....'

2. Do you really think that I care about you in any way whatsoever? Do you really think that it matters to me whether or not you are infracted by the moderators here? Do you really think I care about whether or not you ever post in this forum again? I'll save you trouble of thinking of an answer. The answer is no. I don't care anything about anything that may or may not happen to you. If someone were to tell me that Exarch was no longer at TWC, whether you quit, get banned or d
ie, I will not care. You are of zero consequence to me. Your actions are of zero consequence to me

.

Do you think i give a what you think?
Sorry, pal, you seem to be mistaking me for someone who gives a rat's arse what you and your insignificant little contribution (if one can call it that) to TWC.

First of all, I do not voice my desire to see anyone infracted. The comments that I make come after it has already been done. Secondly, of the three that you mention, I can only find one post that even slightly resembles yours, that of Alapram. The post by Clandestino makes it blatantly obvious within the post that it is a joke. It is what we call hyperbole. Lord Condormanius has not posted any violations of the ToS, regardless of your futile effort to manufacture evidence to the contrary.

BS
condormanius has violated the ToS according to his own interpretation of it; stop ducking and weaving like a deer, you cant stop the inevitable. Anyone can see i wasnt serious in my 2 posts and according to my posting history; anyone but you and anyone who has a serious wish to see me infracted for the most petty things.
And in fact according to you, (god i really have to state it again?) clandestino's joke doesnt count remember?

Condormanius[/b] ]
If this warning is not allowed to stand, it will send the message that this type of posting is allowed, as long as the offender says it was a joke. I am fully confident that this is not in the best interest of TWC.

Do us all a favour and look up the meaning of 'hypocrite'; it'd help you immeasurably in your lifelong journey to no end.

Regardless, none of these posts have anything at all to do with your case. Your case is about you. It is not about Alapram, Clandestino or Lord Condormanius. This is why you will lose your Tribunal case. You cannot defend your post. All you are able to do is bring the posts of other members as examples of what else might violate the ToS. Other members' posts are entirely irrelevant to what you have posted

Typical statement by someone who lacks the argumentative faculties for such a discussion. I've explained why your literalistic fundamentalist views are wrong, heck anyone can see it, and btw it's pathetic on your part to try and reassure yourself that i'll 'lose my tribunal case'.

EDIT: btw, noone's impressed with your references to Dostoevsky.

poor LC, all this writing and your just trying to teach someone the difference between a declarative and imperative sentence.

inability to differentiate between the basic forms of sentence structure can certainly lead to someone having to defend themselves in the Tribunal.

well, that and saying we should spay someone (and using the word wrong :laughing: ) or assassinate someone.

EDIT: i have one question, what kind of a person would seriously think that they can go on a public forum and joke about assassinating a public figure? that really stretches the imagination to think that would be accepted in a place like this. i just hope they try saying something like that IRL around a public official and see how much of a "joke" its taken as.

The same kind of person who goes on a webforum and admits to commiting illegal acts such as possessing and taking illegal drugs; the kinda person who actually thinks Palin would've made a good VP

[Lord Condormanius]

God, how is it that you've managed to come this far throughout life with such a poor grasp of the english language; english is my second language, but apparently i'm doing much better than you.

I don't know where to begin to tell you how wrong you are with this one, but this discussion is not about your poor grammar, lack of understanding of elementary sentence structure or misapplied usage of basic words. This discussion is about your tibunal case. If you want to be destroyed in an argument about the English language and basic usage, open another thread somewhere.

the jesus quote is still, by your literal definition, an advocacy of the murder of another human being.

No, it is not even close to advocating anything whatsoever, literally or otherwise, no matter what size font you use. As Hunter said, this is really basic stuff.

did i say literal? whether or not my quotes were a command (tho, who'd issue a command with the non serious afterthought '<shrug> works in america' ?)

I don't know why you did it, but you did. It is really an issue of basic sentence structure...one that you appear unable to grasp.

yes, i'd say it's immature wanting me infracted for such an unrealistic literalistic interpretation of a loophole in the ToS, yet not wanting yourself infracted if we were to apply the selfsame unrealistic literalistic interpretation of the ToS upon you.

I never said that I want you to be infracted for anything. I just said that the moderator made the right choice to do so. I could care less if you are infracted or not.

You have displayed your hypocrisy foir all to see here anywayz, condormanius, and besides you destroyed your own argument pages back.

Not even a little bit. If I break the ToS, the moderators are free to infract me as it is their job to do so.

<clap><clap<clap>
'charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie charlie .....'

Now that's what I call mature!

Do you think i give a what you think?
Sorry, pal, you seem to be mistaking me for someone who gives a rat's arse what you and your insignificant little contribution (if one can call it that) to TWC.

More trolling and flaming...awesome.
...and we can have a discussion about contributions in the proper forum...if you so wish.

BS
condormanius has violated the ToS according to his own interpretation of it; stop ducking and weaving like a deer, you cant stop the inevitable.

Not even close...no matter how big you write it.

Anyone can see i wasnt serious in my 2 posts and according to my posting history; anyone but you and anyone who has a serious wish to see me infracted for the most petty things.

Again, I could really care less about you or anything that happens to you.

And in fact according to you, (god i really have to state it again?) clandestino's joke doesnt count remember?

I don't know whether or not it counts. That is not up to me. What I do know is that it is irrelevant to your case.

Do us all a favour and look up the meaning of 'hypocrite'; it'd help you immeasurably in your lifelong journey to no end.

With all due respect, you are in absolutely no position to tell me to look up the meaning of any word. I think you ought to get a hold of "literal" and "advocate" first. There is nothing hypocritical about anything I am saying here.

Typical statement by someone who lacks the argumentative faculties for such a discussion. I've explained why your literalistic fundamentalist views are wrong, heck anyone can see it,

Rather, it is a typical statement by someone who knows what the hell he is talking about. This discussion is about your tribunal case. The other posts are completely unrelated to this discussion. No matter how much you want them to be relevant, they are not.

...and I don't think "anyone can see it." What you have explained is complete nonsense. If "anyone can see it," then why are you the only one coming up with these far-fetched and off-the-wall ways to try to convince me that I have broken the ToS? Why don't you quit spending so much time trying to figure out different ways to berate me and spend a little bit more time defending your case?

and btw it's pathetic on your part to try and reassure yourself that i'll 'lose my tribunal case'.

Do you know what "pathetic" means? I'm not trying to reassure myself. It is just very clear that you have not done anything to defend your post. All you have done is pull other completely unrelated posts and suggest that they might also be against the ToS. That is not a defense.

EDIT: btw, noone's impressed with your references to Dostoevsky.

I'm not trying to impress anyone, but, yeah...you know what...don't even bother reading it. You'll probably end up trying to accuse him of plotting the murder of Jesus.

The same kind of person who goes on a webforum and admits to commiting illegal acts such as possessing and taking illegal drugs; the kinda person who actually thinks Palin would've made a good VP (yes, i'm talking about you)

I never admitted to possession of anything...and I think Palin is a lunatic. I'm pretty sure the case is pretty close to being the same with Hunter.

[Exarch]

and actually, my infraction is a clear case of an overactive mod who decided to take a fundamentalist view in my case yet not in others, regarding 'promoting illegal activites' specifically, the bit on killing/assassinating people'.
Garb himself acknowledges such flippant obviously non serious comments do not violate the ToS, i've outlined other posters posting the same things without anyone seeing a ToS violation.
Anyone but you.
I've outlined my points and i see no point repeating myself to someone who simply cannot comprehend basic english.


That one went too far. Commenting on something someone has posted is one thing, outright trolling is another - GED

[Lord Condormanius]

and actually, my infraction is a clear case of an overactive mod who decided to take a fundamentalist view in my case yet not in others, regarding 'promoting illegal activites' specifically, the bit on killing/assassinating people'.

I think that is a bit of a mischaracterization of the the truth. I think the biggest problem is that there was no indication that you were joking. You simply said "assassinate him". The moderator did his job properly.

Garb himself acknowledges such flippant obviously non serious comments do not violate the ToS, i've outlined other posters posting the same things without anyone seeing a ToS violation.

Again, the other posts are not relevant your case.
...and I'm not sure how obvious it was that you were not serious.

Anyone but you.

I'm not so sure why you seem bent on trying to convince me of your intentions. It would make more sense for you to try to convince the Tribunes. I'm just an observer.

I've outlined my points and i see no point repeating myself to someone who simply cannot comprehend basic english.

This is just laughable. Every little English language lesson you have tried to provide fails miserably. Any third grader can tell you the difference between a declarative and an imperative sentence...something that you can't seem to grasp.

Again, if you wish to be utterly destroyed in a debate about the English language or some kind of competition regarding sentence structure, usage, grammar, etc., go ahead and open up a thread in a more appropriate area. I will be more than happy to oblige you.

[Exarch]

I think that is a bit of a mischaracterization of the the truth. I think the biggest problem is that there was no indication that you were joking. You simply said "assassinate him". The moderator did his job properly.

Again, the other posts are not relevant your case.
...and I'm not sure how obvious it was that you were not serious.

ok, let's dissect my 2 offending quotes.
number 1:

assassinate him
and spay him as well

now where is the logic of a cold hard killer behind castrating a corpse? it's obvious i was making a rather poor attempt at humour rather than, as you claim, a serious advocacy of promoting an illegal activity.
and if that wasn't clear enough, here's number 2:

assassinate him
it works in america<shrugs>

<shrugs> it works in amerikkka.
While i wont go into detail how often history has encountered turning points with the assassination of certain individuals (franz ferdinand), it's clear the the non serious shrugging (<shrug>) and the black humorous allusion to history clearly indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt that i was not serious.
If this were a law court, this case would be thrown out.

Which leads me to the next point:
The reason why ToS 1.5.10 exists is to protect TWCenter and its members from criminal influences, protect copyrighted material (1.5.10 explicitly and emphasizes this point indicating what the ToS writers had in mind) and to absolve itself in a court of law.
In fact in, a court of law, anyone can see that TWC is not an extremist hate mongering site like stormfront for example, and anyone can see that my 2 quotes were written in a light hearted manner.
In a court of law, my case wouldnt even make it there because it'd be thrown out as a non case-and that is the reason why i've been infracted isnt it? Dromklates believe i've promoted an illegal act and have potentially broken the law.
Well what law have i broken? and if i've broken that law, why hasnt condormaniua, clandestino, alapram and numerous others on this site who've advocated the death of innocents via invasion of a foreign country (also violating international law), who advocate the overthrow of x government (promotion of conspiracy/treason), who advocate abortion as a choice (illegal in some countries eg venezuela where abortion is legal only if it endangers the woman's life, anything else nup).
I've mentioned before that this tribunal case was opening a can of worms and with good reason. the political mudpit would be shut down due to an overwhelming number of posters receiving infractions similar in nature to mine. eg anyone exhorting for an independant taiwan would be in violation of 1.5.10 for promoting the breaking of the PRC anti secession law.
Being taiwanese born, even i can see the ridiculousness of such an infraction.

People see what they want to see when they read something; is it any wonder that the people baying for a literal reading of the ToS in their hopes to have me infracted have previously expressed contrary views to my own in the mudpit? i dont think so.

[Lord Condormanius]

now where is the logic of a cold hard killer behind castrating a corpse?

I am not going to pretend to understand whatever set of logic is used by someone who would make a remark like that. Trying to understand the "why" is really not the goal here.

it's obvious i was making a rather poor attempt at humour rather than, as you claim, a serious advocacy of promoting an illegal activity.

It was not obvious at all. There was absolutely nothing within the post or within the context of the post to indicate that you were "making a rather poor attempt at humour".

While i wont go into detail how often history has encountered turning points with the assassination of certain individuals (franz ferdinand), it's clear the the non serious shrugging (<shrug>) and the black humorous allusion to history clearly indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt that i was not serious.
If this were a law court, this case would be thrown out.

Two points here:

1. Shrugging does not automatically indicate a lack of seriousness. More often, it indicates indifference.

2. Saying "it works in America" is not a "black humorous allusion to history." Frankly, this argument makes no sense at all.

Which leads me to the next point:
The reason why ToS 1.5.10 exists is to protect TWCenter and its members from criminal influences, protect copyrighted material (1.5.10 explicitly and emphasizes this point indicating what the ToS writers had in mind) and to absolve itself in a court of law.

The only thing I can say about this is that no provision of the ToS can automatically absolve TWC in a court of law. The ToS is here to inform users of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable posting. It is not only to protect TWC, but also to help foster a particular kind of environment. The kind of environment where advocating the assassination of a political figure is not welcome.

In fact in, a court of law, anyone can see that TWC is not an extremist hate mongering site like stormfront for example, and anyone can see that my 2 quotes were written in a light hearted manner.

Again, there was nothing within your posts that was "light-hearted". The posts were short and to the point: "Assassinate him."

In a court of law, my case wouldnt even make it there because it'd be thrown out as a non case-and that is the reason why i've been infracted isnt it? Dromklates believe i've promoted an illegal act and have potentially broken the law.

You were infracted because you broke a condition of the ToS. You advocated illegal activity. You urged the viewers of that thread to assassinate Steven Harper. Whether you were serious or not is possibly open to interpretation, but there was no indication that you were joking by simply reading the post or within the context of the thread.

Well what law have i broken?

You have broken the terms of service by making a plea for the assassination of Stephen Harper. You advocated murder. Murder is an illegal activity.

and if i've broken that law, why hasnt condormaniua, clandestino, alapram and numerous others on this site who've advocated the death of innocents via invasion of a foreign country (also violating international law), who advocate the overthrow of x government (promotion of conspiracy/treason), who advocate abortion as a choice (illegal in some countries eg venezuela where abortion is legal only if it endangers the woman's life, anything else nup).

Let's sort this one out here, because can be pretty confusing.

1. Law. It is my understanding that TWC is under U.S. law because that is where the servers are located. That said, the laws of other countries do not necessarily apply as far as TWC is concerned.

2. As far as Clandestino and Alapram are concerned, I will not comment since I am not a moderator and they do not have cases are not before the tribunal. They are irrelevant.

3. I will address the post that I made, which you have continually referenced (out of context, of course), since you are attempting to smear me with it.

This is my original quote (feel free to click the arrow to lead back to the original thread to look at the context):

On a more serious note, I don't care for cocaine. I tried it once...8 years ago...and all it managed to do was kill the buzz I had been drinking for 9 hours to develop and leave a rotten taste in the back of my throat. Never again for me.

You are telling me that this is advocating illegal activities. Unfortunately, you are incorrect. In fact, if you read the post, I am doing exactly the opposite. A reasonable person cannot look at this post and come to any other conclusion. This post is telling people of my negative experience with the drug. I may be incorrect, but I thought I made that very clear by using phrases like "I don't care for cocaine" and "Never again for me." This is certainly NOT an endorsement for drug use. Not even close.

I've mentioned before that this tribunal case was opening a can of worms and with good reason. the political mudpit would be shut down due to an overwhelming number of posters receiving infractions similar in nature to mine. eg anyone exhorting for an independant taiwan would be in violation of 1.5.10 for promoting the breaking of the PRC anti secession law.
Being taiwanese born, even i can see the ridiculousness of such an infraction.

These examples that you use are not similar in any way to your comment. Again, TWC is not obliged to follow any law issued by the People's Republic of China. If you meant it to be a joke, you should have made at least some indication of that...but you did not.

People see what they want to see when they read something; is it any wonder that the people baying for a literal reading of the ToS in their hopes to have me infracted have previously expressed contrary views to my own in the mudpit? i dont think so.

I have said this before and I will say it again. I don't care whether or not you have received infractions in the mudpit. It does not matter to me. I am also not necessarily a strict literalist as you like to paint me. This whole thing started because I commented that the moderator who gave you this infraction made the right decision, which he did. You violated the terms of service, so the moderator was justified in giving you an infraction. The reason the moderator was less inclined to give you a note or merely delete the comment and be done with it is likely due to the fact that you routinely post in such a fashion. Whether or not you hold contrary views to others is not relevant. What is relevant is the way you choose to express those views.

condormanius is for a strict literal reading of the ToS in my case, yet wont apply the same strict readings to any other cases,

This is a complete fabrication. I am not for a strict, literal reading of the ToS. Frankly, your case doesn't require one. It is pretty straightforward. I only comment on cases that are brought before the Tribunal. Cases that are not before the Tribunal are of no concern to me. I do not press for infractions to be handed to anyone. If someone is lucky enough to appear before the Tribunal, there is a pretty good chance that I will comment on his case.

Posts that have not received infractions are not applicable to any argument against me or my views on the ToS since I have not commented on them, nor will I. To suggest that just because I don't police the forum for possible rulebreakers that I have some sort of bias against you is completely baseless and without merit. I am not a moderator. It is not my job.

i'm arguing against such a robotic literal reading for it and appealing for people to use common sense when it comes to discerning between clear cut violations of the ToS pertaining to 'promoting illegal activites' and non serious comments reflecting one's cynical and jaded political options.

If your comment was made in such a way that it was obvious from reading it that you were joking, we might have a different situation than we do. Unfortunately for you, you did not make any indication of such. A strict, literal interpretation of the ToS is not necessary to issue an infraction for your post, which in and of itself, is a clear-cut violation of the ToS.

PS I see that you are suspended again. If you still wish to parle on this upon your return, I will be happy to oblige.