UO Second Age

Soma wrote:Oh man does anyone else have a ridiculously huge boner right now?

Yeah, even the WOMEN

There are no women on the internet.

Men are men, women are men, and girls/boys are cops.

Freight Elevator wrote:There are no women on the internet.

Men are men, women are men, and girls/boys are cops.

TRUTH

Luna/bull = cave?
Same person?

santa12345 wrote:Luna/bull = cave?
Same person?

Same deal, different person.

<facepalm>

You people are seriously slow...

Kadull wrote:<facepalm>

You people are seriously slow...

...and apparently you have your nose so seriously up cave's ass that you're seeing this issue through his (butthurt) eyes.

You have no valid argument on the matter. You complained about the punishment not fitting the crime, I rebutted that, and that's it. This is the best you can come back with.

Who here wonders how many people Cave blackmailed? Maybe it wasn't all from IDOCs. *looks at Guardian Knight*

Pirul wrote: If you don't like it, you can file a complaint following this link: Appeals Department.

Given the terrible arguments presented to me by people who have proven incapable of following simple logic, I'd say that is exactly what I've been doing here.

Kadull wrote:

Pirul wrote: If you don't like it, you can file a complaint following this link: Appeals Department.

Given the terrible arguments presented to me by people who have proven incapable of following simple logic, I'd say that is exactly what I've been doing here.

You took the last sentence of my post and decided to use that? I would love to hear how your logic presents a better alternative than the first part of my post.

Nobody wants to have long drawn out conversations or debates with people incapable of grasping the argument in general. I mean, I haven't really said anything that's even debatable, yet here you are, somehow convincing yourself that you are in fact in a debate.

This is not a debate. You are not providing rebuttals, and so on. This is my trying to teach a couple of you something, and you sticking your heads up Derricks ass to plug your ears.

So while I'm sure you'd like to hear my "rebuttal" to your first half, I've, unfortunately for you, hit that point in time where I feel it's time to politely leave the kids table, and find an adult to spend my time with.

Nobody wants to have a serious "debate" with a mentally handicapped person; that would just be a little silly. So this is where I sort of pat you on the head and say "ok, it's been fun, little buddy! But, I'm gonna go have some grown up time. You go play, have fun!"

Sin Cloud wrote:

Li Meiyang wrote:I still think there's something off here. Sebben just ended up with all those privately donated museum pieces by some kind of fluke? At the very least this is a pretty big dent in UoH's reputation. At most it's.....?

Well, i don't want to speculate.... but does the buck really stop with Sebben and CW? Or are we just looking at a couple of scapegoats? A symptom of something far more sinister, a waft of putrid stank eminating from the uppermost echelons of UOSA's pixel zillionares?

I get the feeling this could still shape up to be a lot bigger than Ettingate.

Heh, I think you're over-analyzing just a lil bit..

Don't be too sure, given the scenario I would not doubt there has been a history of blackmail. I think if something like this happens in the future you should jump on irc from another isp and leave anonymous tips as to the one who is breaking the rules.

You all think Cave got all his crap from IDOCs chances are he didn't.

Yeah you shouldn't sell your stuff for cash, but yeah people should not be tempting you to do so in order to scam you. I think the latter is the worse person. Admit you fell for a scam, that you broke the rules and lost your things, you will have lost them but we don't want this kind of player on board here moreso then the person who tries to make some money even though both are illegal. You go after the dealers to help the addicts in my opinion. In this case the dealer was the one who was getting all his junk by scams and blackmail.

*example* I say I will buy your junk ugly neon pink sandals for 200 bucks cash, you hand them over to me. I tell you you are a sucker and if you throw a hissy fit and say you are going to Derrick (or I think you will) I will just go to Derrick first and say you offered to sell them to me to get you banned. That's considered entrapment. Although it is illegal to make such purchases it is not your place to play crooked cop. That leaves a lot of room for exploit. I can even say if you go to Derrick I will tell him I took the item and had no intention of giving money. It's a loophole if we do not stop it dead in its tracks. If you agree to a deal like that intending to fulfill your part or not....you are just as guilty.

This kind of undercover investigation to get hard proof should be resigned to staff only, not to players. If ever you are victim of a scam like this...again, go to IRC from an outside PC and inform staff anonymously so they can crack down on people who are doing this.

lol

Alright, I don't see anyone taking your side on this, and yet the rest of us are wrong. You must be a regular run of the mill genius then.

<facepalm>

Exactly. Seeing as you're the type of person who would base the merit of his/her arguments on whether or not people agree with them is precisely why I consider you to be an intellectual toddler. Excellent example, thank you.

How about my rebuttal? I'll debate you all day long...

Malaikat wrote:

Kadull wrote:I never said he couldn't. I'm simply respectfully stating to him that his decision in this instance seems rash and apathetic.

I was extremely outspoken in my defense of Cave's actions in this scenario, however I always prefaced my arguments with the fact that my logic was based on information known to me at the time. This edict comes from Derrick several weeks after the event transpired. I assume the time was used to investigate the evidence and to fully consider the implications of action or inaction. To call Derrick rash in this seems ridiculous.

Furthermore, I always conceded that I would feel differently if Cave was actually soliciting, which now appears to have been the case. I even posted a link to a real legal precedent which seems to disprove your "logic" that a suspect has to have actually done something illegal in order to be charged with a crime. It's simply not true, as you can be charged merely for intent. However, in this situation the rule is clear that solicitation is, in itself, not acceptable...