Court Inquiry re: GOF

Welcome to the forums of the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5

Court Inquiry re: GOF; Court Inquiry into alleged criminal activities
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 15 2016, 12:28 PM (1,055 Views)
Amerion	Apr 15 2016, 12:28 PM Post #1
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	The full bench of the Court is in agreement that proceedings will go forward to reexamine the feasibility of perusing a criminal case into the alleged crimes committed by what is commonly known as the Gang of Five. For the record, the Court acknowledges a prior criminal complaint filed by The Church of Satan as being the basis for this inquiry. The complaint filed accuses Stujenske, Feux, Pergamon, Milograd/Yao, A Mean Old Man of aggression, harassment, subversion, conspiracy, fraud, forum destruction, and deserting the then administration. At this time, the Court seeks a citizen of Lazarus to come forward and volunteer their services as a representative of the public and to operate in the capacity of prosecutor for the duration of this case.

Replies:
Constie	May 19 2016, 03:32 PM Post #31
Chief Justice Emeritus of the Grand Court Posts: 830 Group: Accused Member #132 Joined: Apr 28, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	Campinia May 19 2016, 12:56 PM Pierconium May 17 2016, 03:06 PM Campinia May 17 2016, 02:25 PM Feux did take the PRL forum offline entirely for several days, though admittedly he restored it later on. Taking a forum offline has never been considered the same as destroying a forum as far as I have ever encountered in any similar context. Except when Zaolat took down Osiris' (former) forums, that was absolutely treated as the same thing as forum destruction, even after he got it restored. There have been other cases as well that I can't recall all the details of, as far as I remember there was something with 94 (now 95) Block taking down (one of) Grand Central's forums... If you can find these cases, that would be very important to the case



Greater Moldavi	May 19 2016, 05:48 PM Post #32
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	Constie May 19 2016, 03:32 PM Campinia May 19 2016, 12:56 PM Pierconium May 17 2016, 03:06 PM Campinia May 17 2016, 02:25 PM Feux did take the PRL forum offline entirely for several days, though admittedly he restored it later on. Taking a forum offline has never been considered the same as destroying a forum as far as I have ever encountered in any similar context. Except when Zaolat took down Osiris' (former) forums, that was absolutely treated as the same thing as forum destruction, even after he got it restored. There have been other cases as well that I can't recall all the details of, as far as I remember there was something with 94 (now 95) Block taking down (one of) Grand Central's forums... If you can find these cases, that would be very important to the case Would they be? Feux's actions are not addressed in the Court ruling and are only noted after the fact. Based on this post from GP, Zaolat didn't actually take the forum down at all, but only threatened it. It even acknowledges that the forum was not destroyed. The full account is here but the facts are contentious and some of the comments in the original statement do not make sense from a forum administration point of view. Is hearsay a basis of determination for the Court here? Just curious. Edited by Greater Moldavi, May 19 2016, 05:58 PM.



Constie	May 19 2016, 07:43 PM Post #33
Chief Justice Emeritus of the Grand Court Posts: 830 Group: Accused Member #132 Joined: Apr 28, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	I mean, making a new forums and claiming it to be the legal forums could count as "forum destruction"



Greater Moldavi	May 19 2016, 07:58 PM Post #34
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	Constie May 19 2016, 07:43 PM I mean, making a new forums and claiming it to be the legal forums could count as "forum destruction" I would have thought that to be fraud more so than forum destruction, but to each his own I guess. It seems that the Court is very loose with the definition of something that is very serious and carries OOC implications for players in a game. I'm not really comfortable with that but it is not my call, obviously.



Saeturn Valerius Liberalis	May 20 2016, 12:46 AM Post #35
Mild Annoyance Posts: 261 Group: Members Member #278 Joined: Mar 1, 2016	Pierconium May 19 2016, 07:58 PM Constie May 19 2016, 07:43 PM I mean, making a new forums and claiming it to be the legal forums could count as "forum destruction" I would have thought that to be fraud more so than forum destruction, but to each his own I guess. It seems that the Court is very loose with the definition of something that is very serious and carries OOC implications for players in a game. I'm not really comfortable with that but it is not my call, obviously. Perhaps you should let the court actually do something before you bandy about criticizing a still nonextant decision. Edited by Saeturn Valerius Liberalis, May 20 2016, 12:46 AM.



The Church of Satan	May 20 2016, 01:24 AM Post #36
I HAVE CHORTLES! Posts: 861 Group: Accused Member #7 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Lazarus CoS	I wouldn't go so far as to rescind the forum destruction charge for all of the accused, but to the best of my knowledge Perg & Milo didn't. AMOM wasn't an admin or mod on the PRL forum so there's no way he could have. It's common knowledge that Stu did. I myself can't say for sure about Feux but it's definitely likely.



Greater Moldavi	May 20 2016, 03:31 PM Post #37
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	Saeturn Valerius Liberalis May 20 2016, 12:46 AM Pierconium May 19 2016, 07:58 PM Constie May 19 2016, 07:43 PM I mean, making a new forums and claiming it to be the legal forums could count as "forum destruction" I would have thought that to be fraud more so than forum destruction, but to each his own I guess. It seems that the Court is very loose with the definition of something that is very serious and carries OOC implications for players in a game. I'm not really comfortable with that but it is not my call, obviously. Perhaps you should let the court actually do something before you bandy about criticizing a still nonextant decision. The Court already made a decision. The appeal could not exist without it.



Saeturn Valerius Liberalis	May 21 2016, 12:59 AM Post #38
Mild Annoyance Posts: 261 Group: Members Member #278 Joined: Mar 1, 2016	Pierconium May 20 2016, 03:31 PM snip I am referring to a decision on your appeal.



Greater Moldavi	May 21 2016, 09:21 AM Post #39
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	Saeturn Valerius Liberalis May 21 2016, 12:59 AM Pierconium May 20 2016, 03:31 PM snip I am referring to a decision on your appeal. Right, which does not negate anything I said.



Milo	May 22 2016, 03:23 AM Post #40
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #338 Joined: May 22, 2016	The court should reconsider its sentencing with respect to forum destruction. I still strongly object to being declared guilty of forum destruction. Although I don't play NS anymore, I don't want to be instabanned on IRC -- for something I didn't do, no less -- when I check in on my friends. A whisper of "forum destruction" in connection to someone's name can have large consequences. The court is already cognizant that I committed no admin actions on the days in question, and that the forum remains freely accessible to this day. Quote: I wouldn't go so far as to rescind the forum destruction charge for all of the accused, but to the best of my knowledge Perg & Milo didn't. I appreciate the sentiment here, CoS, but it doesn't detract from the glaring failure of this group sentencing. Lazarus knows I didn't commit this crime, and yet I am -- on paper -- officially a forum destroyer now. I hope you'll concede that asterisks have no place beside the words "forum destroyer" in this game. Something must be done.
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #338 Joined: May 22, 2016


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Court Archive · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5