jujmental

Phil Deakins wrote: It's my suggestion that forum users actually use the report link to deal with troll-like posts - insults, barbs and flames - and try to stop the trolling in this forum. On the charge of persistently and repeatedly exhorting users to report posts for a reason that does not exist as a transgression of forum behaviour in the Community Guidelines or ToS: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: If your advice were to be followed, then the OP and every other post in this thread would be considered trolling - except mine. The Judge

Malanya wrote: It is human nature and you are right, it's not most people's nature. I recall the whole issue from the old forum (my original av is from 2008) and it was something I have never seen on any forum I have participated on. See, it doesn't surprise me how someone just wrote it off and wanted to say the past is the past when things are still happeneing, not as drastic, but the intent is still there from the posts. I say that because I see so much negativity and people talking out of both sides of their mouths on this forum that as long as it didn't happen to them they don't care. Of course my posts are usually jumped on for said flaming, but it's not my intent, just because i have a strong opinion and wont back down to someone. Text doesn't show the way some posts are meant so.. Sure, it's wrong when someone gets driven off the forums because of how people act, that was my point in a my posts in a few other threads. People feel they can't stand up for what they believe without getting jumped on and many of those people are not able to look past the snark and continue with their thread. Unfortunately this person has more friends on this forum that play along. If someone is hurt by another poster they should report it. The forum population doesn't have to put up with it, too many do though. No one should be reduced to tears because of this or any forum. Every person's tolerance is at a different level but I would hope that the people that are affected so adversely by someone who is not significant in their life would find it inside themselves to ignore that person and continue posting, stand up for how you feel and if need be then yes, RIC the person. I have it on good authority that Billy Bob Thornton is now a member of this forum, so please could everybody avoid posting images of Chippendale chairs, as he is notoriously afraid of antique furniture. In fact, please do not even mention the similarly-named troupe of male burlesque entertainers in case, by accidentally mishearing, he is driven to tears. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: who you caused to leave the forum On the charge of suggesting that I am a Linden: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: The only ones with the power to force someone to leave the forum (qv Wasted) are Lindens.

Phil Deakins wrote: I have my genuine sources and they will remain private. I'm not trying to prove anything. On the charge of the only thing you are proving is that you have no proof to support a continuing malevolent fabrication of charges: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: You continue to humiliate yourself with your secrecy. Added to your overt failing memory your personal credibility is completely destroyed, and your vexatious actions are merely strengthening the position of your nemesis. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: It was not his little barbs. It was what he did to someone you called a friend. She is gone now, so it is not like it can ever happen again That was Rhonda stating why she reacted as she did. The "he" is you. On the charge of "he" being "you" you are found GUILTY of unprovable harassment Obiter Dicta: In addition, you are in danger of having these ungrounded allegations reported to the Moderators There is nothing in the words you have quoted, from an even more unreliably self-serving witness who is supposedly reporting her impressions of yet another person, to create a causal link between anything that "he" might have did (my emphasis; it was apparently not something he said, which gives the lie to your interpretation) and the disappearance of whoever the anonymous third - or is it fourth - party was. Who knows, the disappearance might have been linked to the discovery of her polyamorous fantasy unfaithfulness by her third real life husband, or a change of real life employment and location, or a general disaffection with SL and a desire to relocate her online business to another virtual world. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: It sometimes becomes like a domino effect when he keeps on and on and on, and simply doesn't stop, and especially when his few friends join in. May I interject with a question? How many of what you might claim to be your friends interceded publicly on your behalf in a recent debate that you had with Pie Serendipity regarding your fabricated memories of an event in the history of Pep Daniels? I understand you had no support for your position whatsoever, and that it has been criticised as being without merit, and possibly justifies classification as a vexatious argument, which is prima facie evidence of harassment. The Judge You may ask the question. None of those I think of as friends posted anything in support of my point Does this not rather dilute the strength of your position? In fact, does it not render your situation ridiculously untenable, since you are arguing that limited public support was offered to your antagonist, whereas you could offer none at all yourself. I will not comment on invisible expressions of support, as you have not admitted the possibility that your antagonist might have had extensive support which was not mobilised into the public domain, thus rendering you even more risible. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: I also don't understand how someone can be reduced to tears by what a person says in a forum but it does happen, On the charge of persistently introducing hearsay evidence: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: Your submission might carry a little more weight if you admitted to being driven to tears yourself. However, the court would only have your unsupported word for it, and that, I am afraid, given your recent admissions of failures of cognitive capabilities, is not worth the screen your pixels appear on. Phil Deakins wrote: causing someone to leave completely and another to react in an astonishing way On the charge of False Memory Syndrome: GUILTY, BUT INSANE Obiter Dicta: The causal association between the posts of an individual and the actions, or reactions, of another, is undemonstrable; remoteness of location and prejudicial interference by others are factors which prevent accurate conclusions from being drawn from what is admitted as at least second-hand opinion. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: It sometimes becomes like a domino effect when he keeps on and on and on, and simply doesn't stop, and especially when his few friends join in. May I interject with a question? How many of what you might claim to be your friends interceded publicly on your behalf in a recent debate that you had with Pie Serendipity regarding your fabricated memories of an event in the history of Pep Daniels? I understand you had no support for your position whatsoever, and that it has been criticised as being without merit, and possibly justifies classification as a vexatious argument, which is prima facie evidence of harassment. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: he caused one person to leave completely No evidence has been provided to support the charge: CASE DISMISSED Phil Deakins wrote: he caused ... another to react so much that he himself was hurt by it. No evidence has been provided to support the charge: CASE DISMISSED Obiter Dicta: The Plaintiff should distinguish between faux emotions presented to achieve an effect (qv crocodile tears, females crying when a motor cycle cop is threatening to give them a traffic ticket, Anthony Hopkins expressing a liking for fava beans) for example, creating an atmosphere of peer rejection which persuades an antagonist that they have been humiliated sufficiently that they do not wish to appear again in public, and real emotions, which can not be confirmed online. Phil Deakins wrote: And he is known to have reduced people to tears No evidence has been provided to support the charge: CASE DISMISSED Phil Deakins wrote: Sometimes people resort to insults during arguments. There is no need for it but it can be understandable. On the charge of issuing insults: NOT PROVEN Obiter Dicta: What is an insult? For example, "You are fat" is simply expressing a perhaps unpalatable truth when expressed by a doctor, so why should it be considered insulting when an amateur offers the insight? Such an "insult" would be rather stupid in an online debate, of course, as there is no evidence to support it. "You are semi-literate" or "Your memory is unreliable" would similarly be simple expressions of the truth as could be evidenced by reference to posting records.On the other hand "You are a troll", "You are mean" or "You are full of sh1t" are expressions of opinion, which are likely to depend upon the issuer's interpretation - or recollection, which may be faulty - of the concepts underlying the words, and which are demonstrably unprovable although the issuer's intent may be interpreted as malevolent. The Judge

Aislin Ceawlin wrote: My original post was not meant to be provoking. There has been so much talk of trolling lately, that I thought I would simply clarify exactly what the definition of troll is. That is all I have to say. On the charge of Flaming: GUILTY On the charge of Harassment: GUILTY On the charge of being ingenuously interfering to attract personal attention: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: Ignorance is not a valid defence. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Incessant whining about trolls is the perfect troll bait... I rest my case. ...Dres Interesting point and observation, Dres On the charge of being first responder to the OP: GUILTY. The Judge

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: jujmental wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Treat others as you want to be treaten. To the charge of total lack of comprehension, and an associated charge of incoherence: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: Deportation and repatriation is recommended. and for you i recommend a good spanking and go in bed without dessert . no need to answer, kid, i dont have time for playing the babysitter with you.. i have 10 years old kids who are waiting for me in a school class in RL and really, i find them so much mature than some babies here.. Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, teach kids under 11. The Judge

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Treat others as you want to be treaten. To the charge of total lack of comprehension, and an associated charge of incoherence: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: Deportation and repatriation is recommended.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Incessant whining about trolls is the perfect troll bait... I rest my case. ...Dres The OP has already been found guilty in my court of Flaming, in almost exactly the terms it is expressed in by the Guidelines. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: feel forced to leave the forum completely, or get reduced to tears. No evidence has been presented: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: This is the second offence. I understand there is a principle of three strikes and out for Harassment. 1. You yourself posted a link to where there is irrefutable evidence of one of those things 2. And I know that the other is also true. 1. Unsubstantiated hearsay is not allowable evidence in my, or any other civilised court. STRUCK OUT! 2. Interpretation of personal opinion as factual is allowed only to expert witnesses; you don't qualify. STRUCK OUT! The Judge Then try the one where you yourself posted a link to the evidence (You, the person at the keyboard, that is) Oh, and word of mouth evidence is most definitely allowed in my court On the charge of implying the existence of non-existent evidence: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: You are not being tried in your court; you are being trying, and trying and failing. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: Trolling is a blanket word that covers things that are in the forum guidelines. You need to brush up on the law, judge. The ToS/Guidelines do not mention trolling; it is therefore an unviable concept. PLEA DISMISSED Obiter Dicta: As has been indicated before, one can not transgress a law that does not exist. A rose by any other name is fine for the purposes of literature but has no place in a court of law. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: feel forced to leave the forum completely, or get reduced to tears. No evidence has been presented: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: This is the second offence. I understand there is a principle of three strikes and out for Harassment. 1. You yourself posted a link to where there is irrefutable evidence of one of those things 2. And I know that the other is also true. 1. Unsubstantiated hearsay is not allowable evidence in my, or any other civilised court. STRUCK OUT! 2. Interpretation of personal opinion as factual is allowed only to expert witnesses; you don't qualify. STRUCK OUT! The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: I exhort forum users to report the troll's trolling posts On the charge of Harassment, I find you GUILTY Obiter Dicta: There is, as has been pointed out, no offence of "Trolling" in the Tos/Guidelines; you are thus encouraging others to report posts which do not contravene the rules of the Forums. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: feel forced to leave the forum completely, or get reduced to tears. No evidence has been presented: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: This is the second offence. I understand there is a principle of three strikes and out for Harassment. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: He has reduced people to tears, he has driven people out of the forum, Case dismissed through lack of evidence. Obiter Dicta: Surprise, surprise. Phil Deakins wrote: Note: No names have been used in this post, so no identity has been disclosed. The jury should disregard this, as online there is no such thing as a permanent identity. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Obiter Dicta: Presuming to speak on behalf of everyone is delusional and abusive. The Judge That's 'obiter dictum' - singular. You only wrote one comment. 'obiter dicta' is plural. I hope that helps in your future cases. It should save you from some embarrassment. We wouldn't want people laughing at the judge, would we? lol On the charge of believing consensus-written Wikipedia rather than a reliable legal source: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: One comment may express many thoughts; one thought may be expressed in many sentences; in your case, you appear to have a life sentence relating to one thought - and it is abusive, contrary to the ToS/Guideline relating to Harassment, by vindictively exhorting others to report an individual's posts. The Judge

Phil Deakins wrote: Malanya wrote: In this forum people that call another a troll are usually doing the same thing they claim the said troll is. If you don't agree, or you speak up for yourself, people have a tendency to try and turn your words around. If you answer one of their questions all of a sudden you are trying to prove something, even though they asked you. If you ignore their replies then you are accused of something else lol. Then you have the people that are saying things to you in PM's that are afraid to post what they feel on the thread because of how they may "look" to the other forumites. Your insight is refreshing. There is a lot of truth in what you say, Malanya. People accuse others of trolling when they are not, and it happens quite often here. However, this forum does have one actual troll, who has been trolling here for many years, and everyone knows who it is. On the charge of presumptive self-aggrandising hyperbole: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: Presuming to speak on behalf of everyone is delusional and abusive. The Judge

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: It worked! ETA You might want to look up what sarcasm actually means. On the charge of failing to realise that Dres knows what Dres knows, and it's more than you know: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: Dres is a close friend of a close friend of Pep's, so he knows what Pep knows too. The Judge

"I's yo' nex' door neighbo'" "Order in court" "I'll take two cans of beer" "I'm the fella who introduced you to your wife" "LIFE!" "Everybody goin' to jail this mornin'" "I'm givin' mysel' six months" "This man hasn't had time to put his pants on" All charges dismissed! The Judge

KatTruewalker wrote: Thank you... I really appreciate your post and the comments you made there and I agree with all of them. Maybe what players want to see acknowledged is those very points you raised. SL is an old game, it was a forerunner in it's time, the problem is it hasn't kept pace with hardware or technological developments. Having played an MMO which suffered from very similar problems and which closed down rather than adapt and improve, I recognise similar signs in SL. Maybe what I'm looking for is LL to respond to the concerns of it's users, not by applying more restrictive T&C's or implementing updates which are less than game ready, but by entering a real discussion with it's paying customers. After all, we are the lifeblood of this company and this platform, we pay their salaries, fund their improvements, I think a lot of them forget that point. It's no different to real life....what we want is value for money and an open and honest discussion of the problems that exist and what measures are being planned to deal with them. On the charge of diluting an otherwise coherent argument by using it's not its: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: It's its not it's. On the charge of insisting it's a game: NOT GUILTY Obiter Dicta: It's a game; soon to be abandoned to those who don't realise it's a game, at which point it will cease to be a game, soon after which it will simply cease. The Judge