MercWithMouth Posted:

I’m sorry, Sarge. But, from the lawyer’s perspective, (I read your subsequent post where you said it might be a useful exercise to approach this from a ‘legal perspective’ ) this is a CRITICAL point. Moreover, it was the point I was waiting on from you.

And this is why. Precedent. The previous application (and AS importantly, the previous NON-application) of the ‘law’ is very much key.

There are countless instances of charges being overturned by courts when it was determined that certain conduct, though being restricted by statute, had not been enforced in practice. Such charges were frequently overturned so as to combat selective enforcement. One of the best illustrations is the New Jersey “Tenafly” case.

In fact, precedent often carries greater legal weight than statutory text.

Here, I was able to refer to past precedent where continuously questioning a mod was NOT penalized. As right it shouldn’t. And in that instance… the “questioning” lasted far longer and contained a far greater degree of vulgarity than the instance from last night.

Moreover… users on forumwarz are ALWAYS arguing with moderators. I’m quite sure I’ve heard you express yourself that you were sometimes amazed at how… “whiny ****y” they could be (not your words). And in those instances… they WERE very vulgar.

And yet… nothing happened. Nor should have. One of the cornerstones of Forumwarz (for better or worse) is being able to blab off at the mouth at will.

Which is what I was doing (albeit, non-vulgarly).

Moreover, when you cited those rules, you cited them as if to say that mods have a “blank check” (or close to a blank check) for imposing bans etc. Leaving aside the merits of having a rule allowing the mods to have “blank check” abilities…

I’m afraid the nature of the ‘citations’ you provided do not amount to a fully convincing case that mods have a “blank check” (or close to a blank check) for imposing bans etc.

The particular-rules you cited could be interpreted in at LEAST two reasonable lights:

(1)that the mods do have “blank check” abilities (or close to a blank check) for imposing bans etc. (the interpretation you invoked)

or

(2)that in those instances where the rules almost-but-do-not-quite apply to a specific situation, then the mods are allowed to exercise additional discretion to address it — particularly when doing so would prevent an absurd outcome.

Drawing from the legal perspective, since statutory and/or contractual text is to be interpreted AGAINST the drafter (see Uniform Commercial Code, generally), under the legal perspective, the second interpretation would prevail so long as both interpretations might be deemed reasonable even if at odds (i.e., a reasonable doubt exists as to how the rules ought be interpreted).

Similarly with the “two sentences” you cited… while I can “understand” how they could be interpreted as two separate statements, it seems as reasonable (if not more reasonable) to interpret them to mean that the first sentence need apply before the second sentence kick in. After all, the drafter of the statutory/contractual text could have more openly put in the two statements as separate — their current positioning do seem to lend the appearance that they work in tandem.

And besides… I wasn’t even doing anything that bad.

I was disputing with a guy whether he should have banned the other guy or not. It wasn’t swearing off at the mouth with the n-word or “fabulous person” or “****tard”. It wasn’t cramping up the chat-interface with so much text that people couldn’t read what was typed before or afterward. The wording wasn’t terribly rude; a bit long-winded in terms of word-choice, sure, but that was just a way to try to keep the tone civil and better ensure it wouldn’t degrade into ‘f— yer mom’ which it didn’t. And I don’t think we were even talking that long. Maybe a few rounds of incit at the most. The “precedent” I was talking about went on for 45minutes.

Sarge, this is all academic. Which is precisely the point. It’s a useful thought exercise that helps us reflect deeper on our own perspectives and what we believe; the better that we might gain from it (arguably a rarity on the Flamebate RP forums).

Even so, I’m still prepared and would even LIKE to apologize for my actions if you could provide past instances like I requested in my previous post (i.e., cite precedent).

That said, I’m very appreciative that you took time to take me seriously on the underlying matters.

Thanks Sarge. : )

*DISCLAIMER*: THIS IS WHAT MERC ACTUALLY BELIEVES

spacekadt Posted:

Nope… I PLEADED for someone to do it and one of the people I actually like had some BPs and did it for me. It was awesome Log in to see images!

wow, must be a very good friend Log in to see images!

Christ, Merc. It was a 3-hour break from the site (oh wait, not even the whole site, just from the “community” ) for being an annoying jackbum by spamming up incit chat and haranguing the mods endlessly about something that didn’t concern you. You weren’t whipped or fined or even denied the ability to use your visits. Get some perspective.

FunJelly8 Posted:

wow, must be a very good friend Log in to see images!

I hope so; I checked the exact wording with her like 3 times to make sure it was right before I actually did it.

plk Posted:

I hope so; I checked the exact wording with her like 3 times to make sure it was right before I actually did it.

Log in to see images!

PhineasPoe Posted:

Okay, guys, I’m releasing the papers. WeChall’s got us. Here’s the awful mod abuse you guys don’t even realize you suffer from.

WARNING: Way too stupid and TL;DR to read.

Why Merc Got Banned

Part I: Merc Speaks Coloquially:

INCIT-Bot 5000: We need at least 5 submissions before we can begin voting. I’m extending the submission period.

8:46PM

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: We gotta talk, bro. That ban shouldnt have been issued.

sillybear25: aww…

Name-: ban?

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: I invited him here to take my seat at the table because I was leaving.

INCIT-Bot 5000: We need at least 5 submissions before we can begin voting. I’m extending the submission period.

PhineasPoe: MercWithMouth: What the ****? Is that even a thing?

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: He submitted because he saw there was only 4submissions in the queue when he got here.

8:47PM

Name-: who was banned?

Part II: In Which We Learn Who Was Banned:

8:47PM

INCIT-Bot 5000: Hey, it’s time to vote! Remember, if you don’t vote, your entry will be disqualified.

MercWithMouth: PhineasPo Name-: _2Dum2Kno . A damn fine INCIT player and a bona fide bumet to the Forumwarz community.

INCIT-Bot 5000: And the results are in!

PhineasPoe: All right, a few things: 1. This doesn’t involve you at all, Merc. 2. If it’s going to be discussed, he can discuss it with me. 3. It doesn’t need to be talked about here.

8:48PM

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: What do you mean by “not even a thing?”

PART III: REAL- Time: Better Than Other Types of Time?

8:48PM

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: I’m afraid you’re wrong on count one. But you’re absolutely right on count3. Ergo… we won’t discuss Count1 here.

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: Please come with me. I’m asking very respectfully.

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: http://tinypaste.com/dbba4

PhineasPoe: No, Merc. It was a dump sub. He’s been warned and banned before. It’s only a day. And again, most importantly, it doesn’t involve you.

INCIT-Bot 5000: Hey, it’s time to vote! Remember, if you don’t vote, your entry will be disqualified.

8:51PM

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: He’s located there. Come talk to him. In REAL-TIME.

Part IV: LOLCAPS

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: You banned a player for 24hours despite a veteran player vouching for him strongly.

8:53PM

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: The least you owe him is talking to him— in real-time.

PhineasPoe: OH DEAR **** IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: Please do not dodge the underlying issue by playing the “I’m the mod here” card.

PhineasPoe: Thanks for breaking the situation that occured five minutes ago down for me, bud.

PhineasPoe: I’m not.

PhineasPoe: I’m playing the “Merc’s not a mod, so it’s none of his business” card.

8:54PM

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: Then come talk to him and find a more suitable solution to an outright community ban.

PART V: Spacekadt

spacekadt: MercWithMouth: seriously, stop. veteran players vouching for someone don’t mean crap. PhineasPoe has the admins and other mods behind him. if you want to protest, go make an unban thread in rp

8:54PM

INCIT-Bot 5000: Hey, it’s time to vote! Remember, if you don’t vote, your entry will be disqualified.

PhineasPoe: MercWithMouth: Like what, community service?

8:55PM

spacekadt: MercWithMouth: this is your “mod discretion” warning on this one from someone wholly not involved in whatever just happened

INCIT-Bot 5000: And the results are in!

Name-: durr i maek vote 4 myself out

INCIT-Bot 5000: A new round has begun!

teejayandjon: mai work here, is done.

teejayandjon: *JUMPS OUT A WINDOW*

MercWithMouth: spacekadt: I fail to see how I’m being disruptive. My conduct could be penalized if I was interfering with a mod from bumISTING a player— not from explaining to him a contrary perspective.

8:56PM

PART VI: Merc is a Modern Day Tom Joad:

8:56PM

MercWithMouth: Name-: I’m not even submitting this round.

8:57PM

spacekadt: MercWithMouth: it’s none of your business. PhineasPoe is a mod and in charge of INCIT. bans are at his discretion, not yours. the punishment for breaking rules is well known and PhineasPoe did not overstep that punishment. it’s done. let it go.

Decambray: i love how the chat is totaly based on INCIT atm.

Name-: wait what

MercWithMouth: spacekadt: sorry. call it the nag of the legal profession…

Decambray: i wish this chat would be filled more with talks about b& and stuff… I wonder if lets say… Merc! would like some cheese with his whine.

INCIT-Bot 5000: We need at least 5 submissions before we can begin voting. I’m extending the submission period.

MercWithMouth: spacekadt: but when i see an injustice… no matter how petty…

MercWithMouth: spacekadt: *small

MercWithMouth: spacekadt: i feel an obligation tos peak up.

8:58PM

PART VII: If Merc’s Not Gonna Play Incit, No One Should Play INCIT:

8:58PM

spacekadt: MercWithMouth: it doesn’t concern you. that’s basically the end of the story here.

8:59PM

INCIT-Bot 5000: Hey, it’s time to vote! Remember, if you don’t vote, your entry will be disqualified.

PhineasPoe: Injustice is a heavy word for a 24 hour community ban.

MercWithMouth: spacekadt: as i recall… you imparied your own credibility SEVERELY when you aided-and-abetted raw INCIT vandalism.

INCIT-Bot 5000: And the results are in!

MercWithMouth: PhineasPoe: then come talk to him and hammer out a compromise.

Name-: boated byself out a-****ing-gain

INCIT-Bot 5000: A new round has begun!

spacekadt: MercWithMouth: whether or not that’s true… it’s totally beside the point. PhineasPoe made a call that has the backing of the admins and other mods. it’s out of your hands. if you want to protest, do it in rp, not INCIT

9:00PM

MercWithMouth: Name-: maybe you should just not submit for a while… i’m a bit more agitated about what i’m seeing here than you think.

PART VIII: Everybody Supports Merc:

PhineasPoe: No, you understand how ridiculous you’re being, right?

9:00PM

Decambray: <- Laughs at the whine about a 24 hour ban. perfect occasion to get some RL life.

MercWithMouth: Decambray: well OF COURSE i’m whining. I won’t deny that.

PhineasPoe: Name-: Dude, you can submit whenever you want. Just because Merc’s getting ****y doesn’t mean you can’t play.

MercWithMouth: Decambray: but the due was out of line.

MercWithMouth: *dude

Decambray: The only thing out of line is you going on about it over and over again.

Decambray: IMO.

MercWithMouth: Decambray: That’s right. In your opinion.

MercWithMouth: Decambray: My opinion is the contrary.

Decambray: thats why i said imo I wonder if you couldn’t adress this issue elsewhere since this isn’t the ‘lets talk about bans all the time’-chat

9:02PM

sillybear25: ffs, can you quit arguing and play

PART IX: MERC HAS EYE TROUBLE:

Name-: MercWithMouth: wait, is there something wrong with my stuff, or you just ****ed off? i dont get it

9:02PM

MercWithMouth: Name-: lol. the second one, man.

teejayandjon: *Blasts through the roof in a parachut*

INCIT-Bot 5000: And the results are in!

Name-: MercWithMouth: second what

MercWithMouth: Name-: 2dum2kno shouldnt have been banned.

9:03PM

MercWithMouth: Name-: i’m not playing cuz i’m displeased with what i;m seeing.

JESUS THIS IS LONG: MERC’S FINAL WORDS:

9:03PM

MercWithMouth: Name-: i was suggesting the same thing for you.

MercWithMouth: teejayandjon: Even so… it MIGHT be better to sit out a few rounds.

Name-: MercWithMouth: sooo i shouldnt submit cause… you don’t like what you see where?

MercWithMouth: Name-: teejayandjon: I’m not submitting because I think the mod played the mod-abuse card. Moreover,

MercWithMouth: Name-: teejayandjon: He won’t sit down with the ‘victim’ to discuss it or try to find a middle-ground.

Name-: MercWithMouth: so you don’t want us to get banned? so far it seems hes cool with me

PhineasPoe: Guys, I think Merc’s trying to call an INCIT strike. INCIT STRIKE, EVERYBODY! IT’S A SIT IN! I’m partial to “We Shall Not Be Moved” so if you guys could sing that one and maybe some Phil Ochs.

MercWithMouth: Name-: teejayandjon: You heard the man.

Decambray: I dunno the lines, else i’d be totaly in.. but i’m not

9:05PM

MercWithMouth: http://www.forumwarz.com/discussions/topics/2004-wech¬all-super-secret-forum Are you happy? Sad? Filled w. RAAAGE? Share on the WeCh¬all Clan Forum! (it’s easier if you click here http://tinyurl.com/WCForum )

...and banned.

INCIT-Bot 5000 speaks the truth!

lmao skimmed because who gives a ****

laffed.

I didn’t read past page one, but I Log in to see images!

Merc I’m still waiting for proof of myself spreading out your personal information and pranking you via cellphone when my cellphone itself has no money atm

but fran’s fingers are too fat to dial the keypad!