OverCensureship said shiz in a causal manner

[+Requiem]

Intention has no place in enforcing the rules. It cannot be proven.

Can't be proven? That will come as a shock to every criminal lawyer who practices in the Unites States since proving intent (known as mens rea) is a mandatory component of nearly every criminal conviction. Intent holds a central place in enforcing the rules known as "law."

Regards,
Wil

I love when people try to compare the justice system of the US with the justice system on Excelsior. There are a few notable differences.

1) There is no "due process" on Excelsior. You aren't innocent until proven guilty. You're proven guilty before you're even punished.

2) We don't have a court system. As Staff, we are Judge, Jury, and "Executioner". Certainly, we have rules to follow set forth by the shard owner, and occasionally if someone oversteps, we get spoken to, and the sentence may get lessened or overturned, but for the most part, that doesn't happen. (I think I know of maybe 2-3 instances in all the year's I've been here).

3) Unlike citizenship, having an account here doesn't give you any "rights". It's +Cs server, and he can ban you from it because he didn't like the way you said hello to him, and there is absolutely nothing you (or anyone else) can do about it. He could shut down the server tomorrow, and there would be no recourse available to anyone here.

4) We try to be fair, and sometimes we do make mistakes. We're human. If you feel you have been singled out by one of us, we have an appeals process. As a GM, any ruling I make may be overturned by an Administrator. Any ruling they make can be overturned by +C. His ruling is final.

5) By logging in, you agreed to the rules in the codex. You clicked that you accepted them, and any future changes to them
(by continuing to log in) when you created your account. I don't think anyone wants to have to click this gump every time they log in, but perhaps it might help drive the point home.

Also worth mentioning, depending on how you respond to your initial punishment will for the most part dictate the rest of our interaction with you. We all try to be nice, and understanding, but if you come at us angry and cursing, that's getting thrown right back in your face. I'm not a customer service person you get to abuse because you feel slighted by something you yourself are responsible for in the first place.

[Gaara]

Not gonna quote the wall of text above but this comes up every year at least a few times I guess it's good to remind some folks that playing here is indeed a privilege, not a right.

Peace

[Wil]

I would have assumed you were intelligent enough to know the difference between an involved, lengthy public criminal trial and an internet video game where everyone is essentially anonymous, where there are logs to show without a shadow of a doubt every action taken and word spoken by a specific account, and where nobody has months or years to spend dealing with any given rule violation issue. I guess either my assumption was incorrect or you just can't stop yourself from trying to stir the pot at every available opportunity just for the sake of doing it.

Twisting my words to imply I suggested some kind of dense legal process for shard rule breaking? That's on you. I said only that I don't think you understand "intent" or how it factors in a reasonable and even-handed evaluation of alleged misbehavior. No more, no less.

Graceless handling of truth told to power? That's on you too.

Regards,
Wil

[+Requiem]

Wil,

How does one exactly prove someone INTENDED to type [g instead of [c? Why does it matter? Fact is, there are language rules in place for world chat, and not so much for guild chat. I can't prove you didn't intend to [c just to see if you could get away with something. or if it was truly a mistake.

People lie. Intent changes. It's a horrible excuse used to get away with things you shouldn't be getting away with.

Maybe someone gets drunk one night, and loses control of their car, and kills someone. I'm pretty sure they didn't intend to, but they should be punished as if they had in my opinion, because the result is the same. They directly caused someone to die.

[+Nyx]

There is no "alleged" misbehavior in the incident this thread is about, there is factual misbehavior. You of course consider the codex to be heavy-handed, but that does not change what the codex says, nor does it change the standard punishment for an infraction such as Andy's. You were attempting to compare situations that take place in the real-world democratic process in the USA to something that happened in a video game.

And as usual, your idea of "truth" is quite a bit different than the actual truth of what happened, particularly since you let your 3-years-and-counting grudge get the better of you every single time.

[+Veritas]

I would have assumed you were intelligent enough to know the difference between an involved, lengthy public criminal trial and an internet video game where everyone is essentially anonymous, where there are logs to show without a shadow of a doubt every action taken and word spoken by a specific account, and where nobody has months or years to spend dealing with any given rule violation issue. I guess either my assumption was incorrect or you just can't stop yourself from trying to stir the pot at every available opportunity just for the sake of doing it.

Twisting my words to imply I suggested some kind of dense legal process for shard rule breaking? That's on you. I said only that I don't think you understand "intent" or how it factors in a reasonable and even-handed evaluation of alleged misbehavior. No more, no less.

Graceless handling of truth told to power? That's on you too.

Regards,
Wil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDvFdj-pFMc

[patrix]

Ha ha, I love the feather ruffling!

[Wil]

You were attempting to compare situations

I did no such thing. Read the words I actually wrote.

And as usual, your idea of "truth" is quite a bit different than the actual truth of what happened

I don't have to stuff words in to anyone else's mouth to arrive at my idea of truth.

[lilbear68]

bottom line it always falls back to 'its my rules my ball and if I don't like it im going home'
or your going to be banned or jail, instead if a little discretion its always 'the hammer'
I have actually seen snoop use that word and the word dizzle and I have always wondered what a literal translation of them are because if its a black term and one gets in trouble for using these then is it racism? cultural appropriation? personal interpretation of that the word meaning or what it actually implies? I have heard it used on big bang theory and snoop used it when he was on with martha stewart and that's pretty clean cut stuff

[+Nyx]

Referring to a common slang word as a "black term" is quite racist. Enforcing the shard rules is not.

Every matter on the shard whether it be a rule violation or tantrums over shard changes, anything - it all boils down to the fact that it *is* coli's shard, these *are* the rules. No player is entitled to an 'argument' to try to 'win' about anything that happens. It isn't a "fall back", it is the simply the core of any shard issue. There is no winning for anyone, there is only the staff's decision how to handle something and the player's decision whether or not to keep playing here or not. That decision is up to each player, and it does not change anything about anything. The shard and the codex are what they are, railing against them does not change them.

I know you think you're being ever so clever in stirring the pot and that you're deriving much pleasure from doing so, but it's a pretty big game with plenty of other things to do that won't keep digging yourself a deeper hole, which given your shard history I doubt you really want.

[Golden Temptress]

Instead of creating a drama thread why not just take your punishment with grace, it's only 3 days and you would of been chatting happily again tomorrow, it's not like it's a first time whoopsie, just take it in your stride and move on

[+Veritas]

Just so we are clear...

This whole thing started because you were warned and then later chat banned for making a statement that you deemed necessary to contain language that bypassed our chat filter. You specifically navigated around that filter to say what you did. This was no accident.

We are volunteer staff here, and as such must enforce the determined rules of the shard. Just because we have strict global chat rules doesn't mean we walk around in our personal lives refraining from using that language and become offended when we hear it. Perhaps when volunteering or working a job, one may need to follow some protocol that they do not completely understand or agree with? Maybe that doesn't make them tramplers of individual rights? Maybe consider that keeping the global chat on a server that children play on as clean as possible has some merit, even if you don't understand or want to accept that? Swear like a sailor in guild and PM all you want, I couldn't care less so long as all parties involved are consenting. As much as you may want to make this a civil rights/1st amendment issue...it is making Mt. Doom out of an ant hill.

3 days chat ban is not the end of the world, perhaps some perspective is necessary.

+V

P.S. - The jackal-like thread sniping is oh....SO old. That ship has not only sailed away, but has since returned full of goods and spices...Grow up.

[Player One]

bottom line...

[culichi]

we need a poll to prove once and for all that the majority of the server is fine with the chat rules.
I prefer more foul language myself but I have to admit that allowing people to let their inner howard stern out on world chat will probably lead to reddit style rudeness and intolerance so lets just avoid it and demand church lady speech on wc. personal messages and gchat allow naughty language so dunno why restricting it on wc causes some people to go into hysterical rants about it.

[+Nyx]

I think the trouble with a poll is that the haters are just going to label everyone who voted "with the staff", meaning for the existing codex rules, as "cronies" or "favorites" or some other condescending and disdainful term that attempts to diminish the validity of the vote. The majority of the shard would confirm what we already know - there's nothing particularly wrong with the chat rules as they stand. The trolls won't be convinced otherwise, because people who get stuck in grudges and drama-binges just prefer to be there and there's no talking them out of it. Every situation will just be twisted to feed their neuroses and justify their behavior and attitudes. You can't really convince people whose thinking is that backwards to see more clearly. They don't want to, so they won't.