Noted Adman85, originalthor / Secret Diplomacy [tg]

[owenshooter]

here are all the screen shots, i do not see any mention of the post that i have brought to the mods attention. i see you discussing another post, but not the one i have flagged. so, please show me where you reported the post that i have flagged... you haven't, and you didn't. it was posts on your wall... once again, you have a way with the truth that just isn't accurate.

Subject: uncgopher / Adman85 - Secret Diplomacy

[subtleknifewield]

here are all the screen shots, i do not see any mention of the post that i have brought to the mods attention. i see you discussing another post, but not the one i have flagged. so, please show me where you reported the post that i have flagged... you haven't, and you didn't. it was posts on your wall... once again, you have a way with the truth that just isn't accurate.

Subject: uncgopher / Adman85 - Secret Diplomacy

...

And of course now you focus on entirely the negative when the truth of the matter is this happened BEFORE HE WAS DISCIPLINED FOR THE OTHER, meaning before he was told, concretely by the staff personally that it was wrong. Meaning before he knew it was wrong.

So what if he remembers one other detail wrong (this is assuming he didn't report it in some OTHER way, of course)? The fact is disciplining him for this would be equivalent of double jeopardy in legal matters, holding him on trial for the same crime twice when he has already once been convicted.

[Adman85]

There was more conversation than that though (above where trini says "now lets deal the next one"), I remember mentioning it, though it was a long argument and I'm not 100% on who I mentioned it to (I am quite sure it was trini though). I did say I "think" and I "believe" it to be the case, asserting that I am not 100% sure in either regard. Perhaps trini could verify whether I mentioned it to him/her if he/she can remember the specifics.

Owenshooter you were there at the time too.

[ariskocrat]

This is not like double jeopardy at all. Double jeopardy only deals with the same set of events or circumstances. If you're tried and convicted of a murder that occurred in 2014, you can still be tried and convicted of a murder that happened in 2012.

[subtleknifewield]

This is not like double jeopardy at all. Double jeopardy only deals with the same set of events or circumstances. If you're tried and convicted of a murder that occurred in 2014, you can still be tried and convicted of a murder that happened in 2012.

It's a rough equivalent, I didn't say it was exactly the same. Now please, let's try not to derail the topic.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Owen, as you well know that was not the only conversation in chat on the subject. Adman went on about it for at least a week.

[Adman85]

I wasn't pointing the timeline out for defense against some kind of double jeopardy scenario, I mentioned it because owen stated a couple of times that I had been warned already and should know better. I'm saying I haven't wall posted anything since that warning, the wall post in question was made before I had received a warning about the other.

I also assumed owen was cyberstalking me because I am quite sure these two wall posts are the only ones I have made since I got back from a long time away.

But that is just clarification and personal defense.

The main point for me here is that all of this was said in game before I posted on his wall;

2015-02-17 06:08:33 - Adman85: whatever help you can provide vs originalalthor (blue) would be appreciated Uncle C, I think we can take him together but not alone
2015-02-17 06:11:00 - Adman85: can and is I should say, it's not like you haven't been fighting I just mean continued pressure at any end helps
2015-02-18 04:43:03 - originalthor: if you both team up against me then pink will win. Play for yourself cyan. If one of us is the strongest hit them...and build up so you too can possibly win
2015-02-18 10:15:56 - Adman85: You have been applying enough global pressure to ensure that he and I can't build, if you keep applying all of your forces aggressively successfully you will likely win, you have me on the backburner at least
2015-02-18 10:18:21 - Adman85: and if you defeat me while uncle c is still heavily broken he will stand no chance (and the same applies if I win), your continued aggression is forcing our alliance basically
2015-02-18 10:19:03 - Adman85: because you are winning, if that changes then it would make sense for uncle c to attack me, but I think i'm losing
2015-02-18 10:20:50 - Adman85: but that is all part of it, personally I think you can take us both, but luck has a way of changing the odds at its whim

No kind of new or different information is in my wallpost to him. It's all in there I can go through and underline/compare specific wording etc, but I think it is quite obvious it is all there.

[Lord Arioch]

Chill! If u have done wrong the mods will spank u if u havent they will not spank u! And if u ask em they will spank u either way:)
Just wait on their verdict we all know your and owens wievs now...

[owenshooter]

Adman85 is actually a pretty cool guy and i believe him when he says he has learned his lesson... i absolutely forgot about the original complaint, until i was reminded of it... and it does fall in those dates (it appears), and he was already warned... he has taken responsibility and knows the rules, now... i literally stumbled across it looking at one of my new stalkers walls, and just reported it, without realizing i had done the same before. obviously, they aren't going to remove every post he ever possibly made on a wall concerning the offense that he was warned off (because it isn't offensive language)... the mods will check it out... but it does look like the date of that post was before he was warned and had clarity on the rules... Adman85 has actually turned out to be almost as cool as Shrodinger's cat... ALMOST... the black jesus loves you all...-Jésus noir

[TeeGee]

This case is noted

I can not clear Adman85 as it is a clear case of attempted secret diplomacy. However since he was warned for a latter offence, has been open and honest, and assisted with inquiries relating to this, I see no point in issuing any further disciplinary action.

[TeeGee]

Noted

[Adman85]

Thank you for the consideration TeeGee, this was another case that to me did not seem like secret diplomacy at the time, but your views on what constitutes secret diplomacy are obviously different to what I had thought. My apologies for not knowing the difference and my thanks again for understanding the timing of the posts made. I certainly will not be posting on walls in the future for any reason whatsoever so you should not see me here again (also these should be the only wallposts I have made within the last few years, so hopefully this won't happen again).

It is a shame that originalalthor now hates and foed me, though I think that was more due to a mistake I made in game that he seems to think was a purposeful attack on his honor, I am sure his implication here would not have helped though, perhaps he thinks I did this on purpose too.

Either way, apologies and thanks,
-Almost as cool as Schrodinger's cat

[ariskocrat]

This is not like double jeopardy at all. Double jeopardy only deals with the same set of events or circumstances. If you're tried and convicted of a murder that occurred in 2014, you can still be tried and convicted of a murder that happened in 2012.

It's a rough equivalent, I didn't say it was exactly the same. Now please, let's try not to derail the topic.

It is not a rough equivalent. One deals with being tried for the same action. There are two separate actions here. Having mercy on him for being ignorant during both is completely separate than the idea that someone shouldn't be tried or punished for the same singular act twice.

[TeeGee]

This is not like double jeopardy at all. Double jeopardy only deals with the same set of events or circumstances. If you're tried and convicted of a murder that occurred in 2014, you can still be tried and convicted of a murder that happened in 2012.

It's a rough equivalent, I didn't say it was exactly the same. Now please, let's try not to derail the topic.

It is not a rough equivalent. One deals with being tried for the same action. There are two separate actions here. Having mercy on him for being ignorant during both is completely separate than the idea that someone shouldn't be tried or punished for the same singular act twice.

I think everyone who reads this or the other thread would be well aware that there are 2 separate incidents. The fact that we showed leniency here is based on a number of factors, but mostly based on the fact that Adman had already confessed to this case when charged with the first. If he re-offends, he will in all probability be charged as a 3rd offence and as he is now fully aware of the rules is unlikely to be shown any leniency. However, given this users character, I would think it very unlikely he will ever find himself in a similar position.

[BGtheBrain]

If he re-offends, he will in all probability be charged as a 3rd offence

Thats not how it works. If thats the case you should have (incorrectly) gave him an infraction here. Noted is practically meaningless. You can't just skip a step on the escalation scale bc you feel "he is now fully aware of the rules."

This case really is pretty clear. The reported incident occurred BEFORE his previous SD infraction. Once you receive the infraction, all prior instances are included in that infraction. Take for example bigotry. If I report someone for calling someone a *** and they are given a warning, thats it. I cant go find another game prior to that and have them given a 30-day ban. Thats stupid. He hasnt done anything wrong since he was warned for SD.

[subtleknifewield]

This is not like double jeopardy at all. Double jeopardy only deals with the same set of events or circumstances. If you're tried and convicted of a murder that occurred in 2014, you can still be tried and convicted of a murder that happened in 2012.

It's a rough equivalent, I didn't say it was exactly the same. Now please, let's try not to derail the topic.

It is not a rough equivalent. One deals with being tried for the same action. There are two separate actions here. Having mercy on him for being ignorant during both is completely separate than the idea that someone shouldn't be tried or punished for the same singular act twice.

Didn't I ask that we stop derailing the issue? I seem to recall mentioning that. He was warned, the instance was included in the previous warn, end of discussion.

[ariskocrat]

How is someone correcting your false logic derailing the issue? You don't get to use the power of a legal doctrine in your argument if the term doesn't even apply. Also, can I ask that you stop trying to further defend your incorrect statement? I asked, so you must stop now.

If *you* would like to stop derailing the conversation, stop trying to defend your misuse of a long-standing well-defined legal term just on the basis that this C&A case turned out the same regardless of your dumb attempt to invoke it. Better yet, go remove your comment. When they ask why you want to remove it, put "I misused a long-standing and well-defined legal term I know nothing about to try and make and argument and therefore my comment adds nothing meaningful or significant to this thread." In fact, I'm asking you to do it. Now, you must.

[subtleknifewield]

How is someone correcting your false logic derailing the issue? You don't get to use the power of a legal doctrine in your argument if the term doesn't even apply. Also, can I ask that you stop trying to further defend your incorrect statement? I asked, so you must stop now.

If *you* would like to stop derailing the conversation, stop trying to defend your misuse of a long-standing well-defined legal term just on the basis that this C&A case turned out the same regardless of your dumb attempt to invoke it. Better yet, go remove your comment. When they ask why you want to remove it, put "I misused a long-standing and well-defined legal term I know nothing about to try and make and argument and therefore my comment adds nothing meaningful or significant to this thread." In fact, I'm asking you to do it. Now, you must.

Do you have any more rhetoric you want to throw at me? He corrected me, well and good, I acknowledged it was not a perfect example, but then he continued on. The whole discussion is moving off-topic in a direction no one ever intended because PEOPLE KEEP HARPING ON IT. Why is it so important to keep correcting one small thing when the whole issue that this thread was about is resolved, anyway?

And my original question t stop talking about it was to prevent derailing a topic, because, ya know, pretty sure forum rules say something about keeping threads ON TOPIC. Your sarcasm is therefore noted and duly dismissed from the case as having no bearing.

As is your unwarranted hostility over a minor error. You want to talk about meaningless? Your arguing over this issue adds no more meaning to this thread than you perceive mine to. Hence, another reason why I asked the discussion to stop--because saying HEY, LOOKIE HERE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ON AN ISSUE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS OF THIS ISSUE is totally relevant to the discussion.

So, again, I ask, PLEASE stop talking about an issue irrelevant to the thread in the thread. I know well and good what double jeopardy is about, I never said it was a perfect comparison, in fact last time I said it was far from perfect--especially when you consider this forum isn't a courtroom and the thread isn't really a court case.

[ariskocrat]

The problem is, you're still defending your imperfect use of the term as relevant. Saying it's not a perfect example suggests it still has some relevance on this case where it has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.

[ariskocrat]

The fact that this is not a court case or a court room has no bearing. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. The only similarity between DJ and here where the decision is made not to punish because Adman was unaware of the rules is that there are two instances of prosecution. Of course, that is a very marginal relationship. You may as well be saying "Old Yeller" and "Air Bud" are the same movie because they both have dogs in them.

[subtleknifewield]

The problem is, you're still defending your imperfect use of the term as relevant. Saying it's not a perfect example suggests it still has some relevance on this case where it has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.

I am the one trying to leave it be, but no one seems to want to leave it alone. It was relevant, this discussion is not. If you disagree, can we not just aree to disagree, like Boris the Animal says? :V

[subtleknifewield]

The fact that this is not a court case or a court room has no bearing. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. The only similarity between DJ and here where the decision is made not to punish because Adman was unaware of the rules is that there are two instances of prosecution. Of course, that is a very marginal relationship. You may as well be saying "Old Yeller" and "Air Bud" are the same movie because they both have dogs in them.

*facepalm* you really aren't getting it at all. I compared it to a courtroom situation, but you are right, calling it such a thing is the same as the example you posted here. So why are we arguing again? We agreed the relationship is narrow, we can both agree on that much, however the argument could be made that the movies ARE comparable because they are both about dogs. :V

Now please, this discussion is growing more off topic by the moment.

[ariskocrat]

Yes, we can agree that there are tangential--substantially meaningless--similarities. We CANNOT however agree as to its relevance here. To say the concept of DJ has any effect on this case suggests that "Air Bud" must be a great film because "Old Yeller" is based on an insignificant similarity. Big difference.

[subtleknifewield]

Yes, we can agree that there are tangential--substantially meaningless--similarities. We CANNOT however agree as to its relevance here. To say the concept of DJ has any effect on this case suggests that "Air Bud" must be a great film because "Old Yeller" is based on an insignificant similarity. Big difference.

Good, then we are agreeing to disagree, yes?