(April 5, 2012 at 3:54 am)Tiberius Wrote: We have done nothing wrong.

One of you did do something quite wrong, a few of us agree on that. For you to declare unquestionably that none of you did is dictatorial. Is AF really akin to North Korea? I don't think the prank was wrong, but then I wasn't on the receiving end, maybe because I was expecting a laugh. Maybe it shamed a couple of people into realisation. That hurts, but it's a useful hurt IMO.

If it were akin to North Korea, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You know that; don't be stupid.

I've seen no evidence that any of the staff did anything wrong. I've seen a lot of butthurt and false allegations about our tactics and motives, but nothing actually objective.

(April 5, 2012 at 4:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Is AF really akin to North Korea?

Is this what it's devolved to?

Shell posting a pm and using it against a person is pretty objective evidence to me.
a. She had no business using a private correspondance to fuel a historic argument of her own
b. She was out of order posting it without permission

Still I'm fascinated by your public free speech idealism and your opposing private views. I'd love for you to go into that further sometime.

---

(April 5, 2012 at 4:40 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 5, 2012 at 4:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Is AF really akin to North Korea?

Is this what it's devolved to?

Looks like it. Apparently we aren't free enough to consider fault may have occurred. It's an anti honesty stance.

(April 5, 2012 at 4:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Shell posting a pm and using it against a person is pretty objective evidence to me.
a. She had no business using a private correspondance to fuel a historic argument of her own
b. She was out of order posting it without permission

a. She did have business using it. Aleialoura was being a hypocrite, and the PM was the proof of that. You can't claim someone is being mean and "unbecoming" when you yourself have sent a horrible PM complaining about that same person. It's hypocritical, hence Shell felt the need to post it. Aleialoura has a history of doing this; either misrepresenting Shell's views or outright lying about them. I've said this to the staff, and I'll said it here publicly: what Shell did was admirable; she stood up to a lying, attention-seeking internet bully.

b. You do not require permission in order to post private messages.

Quote:Still I'm fascinated by your public free speech idealism and your opposing private views. I'd love for you to go into that further sometime.

It's really quite simple. You are entitled to free speech in any public space. You are entitled to free speech in any private space too. However, the owner of said private space also has the right to kick you out for any reason he/she deems appropriate, and that includes not liking the things you are saying. It's not that different to what we currently have. I can call you a "bastard" in the street and nothing will happen. If I call you a "bastard" in your own home, you can demand that I leave, and I would legally be required to.

(April 5, 2012 at 5:06 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 5, 2012 at 4:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Shell posting a pm and using it against a person is pretty objective evidence to me.
a. She had no business using a private correspondance to fuel a historic argument of her own
b. She was out of order posting it without permission

a. She did have business using it. Aleialoura was being a hypocrite, and the PM was the proof of that. You can't claim someone is being mean and "unbecoming" when you yourself have sent a horrible PM complaining about that same person. It's hypocritical, hence Shell felt the need to post it. Aleialoura has a history of doing this; either misrepresenting Shell's views or outright lying about them. I've said this to the staff, and I'll said it here publicly: what Shell did was admirable; she stood up to a lying, attention-seeking internet bully.

Alei said she wouldn't, not that she was. Shell quoted a recent PM as far as I know, not one since that statement, as it had only just been made.

Shell deliberately used a private correspondance between Alei and what Alei thought was an independant ally in LMA who was suffering similar attacks to herself that Shell had been inflicting on her. More reserved than the outright slagging off that Shell issued after this new information granted (and I believe Shell apologised for that outburst), but obvious attacks to me.

Alei has stated her opinion and kudos to her, chooses to step back from it.
So the 'proof' isn't proof.

Sure Alei was/is hurting. Alei was reigning it in publically, but not privately. Surely you don't demand control of our thoughts?

No... what is private is not also public, which is where common decency steps in. Shell showed disregard for private space and violated Alei's by posting her private thoughts.

There was nothing admirable about what Shell did. It was shameful. Shell is the one with the slight power in this situation. The oness is upon her here to show more responsibility. At the moment the ball is on the other foot.

(April 5, 2012 at 5:06 am)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:Still I'm fascinated by your public free speech idealism and your opposing private views. I'd love for you to go into that further sometime.

It's really quite simple. You are entitled to free speech in any public space. You are entitled to free speech in any private space too. However, the owner of said private space also has the right to kick you out for any reason he/she deems appropriate, and that includes not liking the things you are saying. It's not that different to what we currently have. I can call you a "bastard" in the street and nothing will happen. If I call you a "bastard" in your own home, you can demand that I leave, and I would legally be required to.

That's our law as it stands yes. But that doesn't explain your own reasoning... unless you're saying you're position is completely law based. (Forgive me if I got that wrong)

(April 5, 2012 at 7:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Alei said she wouldn't, not that she was. Shell quoted a recent PM as far as I know, not one since that statement, as it had only just been made.

She wouldn't...but she did. Seems hypocritical to me.

Quote:Shell deliberately used a private correspondance between Alei and what Alei thought was an independant ally in LMA who was suffering similar attacks to herself that Shell had been inflicting on her. More reserved than the outright slagging off that Shell issued after this new information granted (and I believe Shell apologised for that outburst), but obvious attacks to me.

I never said it wasn't deliberate. My point was, deliberate or not, Shell didn't do anything wrong by using such correspondence.

Quote:Alei has stated her opinion and kudos to her, chooses to step back from it.
So the 'proof' isn't proof.

Apologizing for something doesn't magically make it right. In fact, I'd say the fact that the apology was issued is an admission that what she did was wrong. So yes, the proof was proof, and even if it wasn't, alei's apology would suffice.

Quote:Sure Alei was/is hurting. Alei was reigning it in publically, but not privately. Surely you don't demand control of our thoughts?

No I don't, but if your private thoughts are discovered and contradict your public thoughts, people should know the truth.

Quote:No... what is private is not also public, which is where common decency steps in. Shell showed disregard for private space and violated Alei's by posting her private thoughts.

Alei didn't show common decency. Why should Shell?

Quote:There was nothing admirable about what Shell did. It was shameful. Shell is the one with the slight power in this situation. The oness is upon her here to show more responsibility. At the moment the ball is on the other foot.

Standing up to someone who constantly tries to harass you, both publicly and now privately is very admirable in my opinion. We obviously aren't going to agree over that.

(April 5, 2012 at 3:54 am)Tiberius Wrote: We have done nothing wrong.

Tell 'em, Caesar, you evil fascist totalitarian dictator you.

Thing about Shell, she's pretty frickin' awesome. I can overlook some morally questionable behavior on her part. The big thing is, if you think "private" and "internet" go together in the same sentence, yer a fucking n00b.

Indeed. Moral of the story should be never to trust a simple username. You have no idea who they might be.

(April 4, 2012 at 5:52 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(April 1, 2012 at 5:28 pm)Bueller Wrote: If being abusive is the only way to get you to see the truth then so be it. Know we do it out of love, numb-nuts

I am offend! Apology demanded!

Alright, alright I apologise. I'm really, really sorry. I apologise unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The insult was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by the spirit of the day and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Your humble servant, Darwinian