YOU FOOLISH PSEUDO JEDI

rugadd wrote: I don't know... I don't understand wanting to stay if the "mob" is against me, anyway. Is it because on the internet there are no physical ramifications and that makes turning ones nose up at the haters easier than walking away? Is some attention, any attention, preferable to none? What would it do to my mind, to my soul, to constantly entertain an environment where I am seen as the bad guy? The few, rare moments someone admits they appreciated something I wrote?

I personally see nothing wrong with tailoring my behavior for the comfort of those around me. Does that make me fake or polite?

...but there shouldn't be a "mob".

Like the Salem witch trials, the mob isn't always righteous. And when the driving force is fear...

it is the path to the dark side.

rugadd wrote: I don't know... I don't understand wanting to stay if the "mob" is against me, anyway. Is it because on the internet there are no physical ramifications and that makes turning ones nose up at the haters easier than walking away? Is some attention, any attention, preferable to none? What would it do to my mind, to my soul, to constantly entertain an environment where I am seen as the bad guy? The few, rare moments someone admits they appreciated something I wrote?

That is a question you could ask her and learn about... But oh well, some people weren't quite fond enough of her, so now you don't get to. Unless, that is, she elects to create another account to circumvent the ban, which will of course itself be a bannable offense all over again.

I personally see nothing wrong with tailoring my behavior for the comfort of those around me. Does that make me fake or polite?

I would say so, yes. To some extent, anyway. As you say, nothing wrong with that. Something wrong with not doing that, though? Well, it would seem so, wouldn't it...

I would say the “Digital Murder” topic was enough to warrant disciplinary action.

The root of the problem is a lack of clear communication. Had a moderator or administrator given her proper warning and explicitly state which rules she broke and why she was going to banned and for how long, then we wouldn’t have this thread.

Not that any lack of clarity on TotJO’s part excuses her inflammatory behavior.

I agree Manny, I wanted to try and shift that into a non-serious thread, because yea that was kind of a fudged up thing to say in the first place, but one can see that it did not go that way.

I do believe a warning should be issued of an imminent ban is being processed.

Much love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: I agree Manny

No one's called me Manny in a long time, haha. Feels odd. :silly:

Manu wrote: I would say the “Digital Murder” topic was enough to warrant disciplinary action.

Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

Manu wrote:

Kobos wrote: I agree Manny

No one's called me Manny in a long time, haha. Feels odd. :silly:

Manny

(there, now 2 people have done it in quick succession )

Allow me to clarify...when I said "mob" I meant prevailing perspective...and those will exist whether they should or not.

VixensVengeance wrote: Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

I would say that in general, most service providers are bound to prevent sharing of content that is inciting criminal activity.

So if I were to say “help me out, I can’t kill someone, so I want your input on the next best thing on how to do it digitally”, I think that it’s crossing the line, since the conversation was not about the phenomena of digital bullying, scamming, hacking, but more of a “how to” thread.

Manu wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

I would say that in general, most service providers are bound to prevent sharing of content that is inciting criminal activity.

So if I were to say “help me out, I can’t kill someone, so I want your input on the next best thing on how to do it digitally”, I think that it’s crossing the line, since the conversation was not about the phenomena of digital bullying, scamming, hacking, but more of a “how to” thread.

Do you think "digital murder" should be a crime? If so how would you define those parameters? What would be the specific requirements to be accused or convicted of such an offense?

VixensVengeance wrote:

Manu wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

I would say that in general, most service providers are bound to prevent sharing of content that is inciting criminal activity.

So if I were to say “help me out, I can’t kill someone, so I want your input on the next best thing on how to do it digitally”, I think that it’s crossing the line, since the conversation was not about the phenomena of digital bullying, scamming, hacking, but more of a “how to” thread.

Do you think "digital murder" should be a crime? If so how would you define those parameters? What would be the specific requirements to be accused or convicted of such an offense?

Where ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote:

Manu wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

I would say that in general, most service providers are bound to prevent sharing of content that is inciting criminal activity.

So if I were to say “help me out, I can’t kill someone, so I want your input on the next best thing on how to do it digitally”, I think that it’s crossing the line, since the conversation was not about the phenomena of digital bullying, scamming, hacking, but more of a “how to” thread.

Do you think "digital murder" should be a crime? If so how would you define those parameters? What would be the specific requirements to be accused or convicted of such an offense?

Where ?

?? Where What??

You would have to establish there was actual damage done to the person not associated with other prevailing, preexisting factors. I know there are some grounds for emotional distress in court cases, but you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the accused were responsible for the trauma. Often times it is dismissed because the defense proves through other social media etc. that the accuser has a history of fragile or combative spirit and thus can not rightly claim that the defendant is at fault. Libel is a huge concern for greater entities, of course, but unless what was said goes from "making me feel bad" too "I suffered harm at the hands of others because what was said" your not going to get anywhere. "I lost my job because of how I feel over what you wrote." is not the same as "I was fired because my employer believed the lie you wrote."

So in that case do you believe that someone playing a sniper in a video game that delights in killing the same person, another combatant in that video game, over and over until the one being shot is so frustrated he throws his game system across the room? It was a malicious act and emotional harm was done to the victim. So can we accuse the sniper of digital murder with malice and thus convict him if its proven that he actually caused emotional distress to the other? What do you suppose the actually punishment would be in this case? Would you send them to a physical jail or put them in a virtual prison for a period of time?

I honestly don't know. In the scenario you posted, sometimes nothing. It's a game. get over it. In other identical scenarios the headhunter gets blocked from participating. When does a lack of self control become someone else's problem? Even being malicious about it isn't enough in some cases.

I really don't know.

Virtual truths are lies, therefore Virtual identities cannot be killed.

"Griefing" is a bannable offense in many video games, it isn't in others. Rule application is a matter of setting what type of user base the game has. Given that TotJO is explicitly against the death penalty, I don't think digitally simulating murder is in the spirit of the temple

rugadd wrote: I honestly don't know. In the scenario you posted, sometimes nothing. It's a game. get over it. In other identical scenarios the headhunter gets blocked from participating. When does a lack of self control become someone else's problem? Even being malicious about it isn't enough in some cases.

I really don't know.

Thank you. I appreciate your answer because its honest.

Taking that idea and applying it to Phoenixes thread is what I want everyone to see here. She was talking about a specific context that seems to now have been ignored in such comments as Manus and just glossed over in the effort to use it as an excuse to ban. If you reread the thread she started it specifically states the intent of the question. It was to be used as a means to assume power in a sith context in a virtual environment where all participants agree to the terms of its use. Its akin to a fight to the death sort of scenario carried out in a virtual environment that is absent the digital graphics that video games enjoy. Thats all it was. People have read way to much into what she wrote, so as Rugard so eloquently says, Get over it!

VixensVengeance wrote:

rugadd wrote: I honestly don't know. In the scenario you posted, sometimes nothing. It's a game. get over it. In other identical scenarios the headhunter gets blocked from participating. When does a lack of self control become someone else's problem? Even being malicious about it isn't enough in some cases.

I really don't know.

Thank you. I appreciate your answer because its honest.

Taking that idea and applying it to Phoenixes thread is what I want everyone to see here. She was talking about a specific context that seems to now have been ignored in such comments as Manus and just glossed over in the effort to use it as an excuse to ban. If you reread the thread she started it specifically states the intent of the question. It was to be used as a means to assume power in a sith context in a virtual environment where all participants agree to the terms of its use. Its akin to a fight to the death sort of scenario carried out in a virtual environment that is absent the digital graphics that video games enjoy. Thats all it was. People have read way to much into what she wrote, so as Rugard so eloquently says, Get over it!

Exactly, VV. Thank you. Seems I’m unbanned as well.

Disagreeing with the group isn't an issue...if done properly....presentation matters, manners matter...we have plenty here that don't agree with everything and they are more respectful in the way they present their disagreement...

By all means disagree-away....just be respectful in how it's done...

Remember we have minors on this site as well...if you wouldn't say/do it in front of your own kids don't do it where other's kids could see...and remember just because you're thick skinned and coarse doesn't mean everyone else is....

Even i have to watch myself on occasion...