attention RL info posting nerds

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The sad thing is you actually believe what you think.

For several months now there has been a long history of forgoing the raid mob that day plus the next one if any type of negligence occurs during an engagement. Your attempt to jam the incident with dinacarl into the scenario provided by ambrotos is glaringly weak seeing as there was no raid encounter to forgo.

Loraens idea that a raid offense is determined by the entity trained not by the identity trainer is also equally devoid of logic, and cannot be found within any concept contrived and recognize by men who make a living making and accepting arguments such as principles of Vicarious liability, agency, or negligent entrustment. Your best bet is under a theory of control via your boy unbrella; but suspicion is not a substitute for evidence.

Thank god none of you are able to sit on a jury .... Wait ... Fuck us all.

Dolic

It was actually just RNF-style snark, sorry you wasted your law degree responding to it seriously.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Duckwalk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That depends on whether the evidence they developed could be manipulated or not. A system where they were only able to flag questionable content for review might work. Regardless, there appears to already be methods the GMs are willing to accept as proof as we've seen in the recent bannings.

Maybe the GMs would never even act on information developed by young detectives but at the very least it might slow RMTers down with the thought that people who severely dislike them are looking for any slip up.

As I said earlier, what youre asking for is already in place. You can submit RMT accusations with evidence to the GMs already. They can look further into it themselves with the current system. You just have to not be a total goober and try to post it in RnF.

[Duckwalk]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I said earlier, what youre asking for is already in place. You can submit RMT accusations with evidence to the GMs already. They can look further into it themselves with the current system. You just have to not be a total goober and try to post it in RnF.

As far as I know, players don't have the ability to track IP and globally monitor trade.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Duckwalk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not if its a intentional tort which benefits the master, right?

Only if they ordered, ratified, or were negligent in what happened. A UPS driver hitting someone on a frolic (getting drive-through while working an 18 hour shift) would likely make UPS liable. Similarly if they later went "Good job on hitting him!" & cut the guy a check (like an NFL tackle bounty program), or if they knew the guy had 50 accidents on his record and still let him drive. Note that apparent authority can create liability, but that is a very fact specific situation, and generally no one ever has apparent authority to commit a crime or anything like that.

However, the driver going out of his way to shoot 50 people when he has no prior record and appeared entirely stable generally absolves the principle of liability.

[Fael]

Originally Posted by Duckwalk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Curious as to why you think agency wouldn't apply. The master is liable for servants acts within the scope of employment or in the case of intentional torts, when force is used to further the master's business/interests.

Seems like BDA would have an argument atleast.

1. For one, intentional criminal acts are outside the scope as you point out. Exceptions have been made in some states but not as broad ones as you may be suggesting. Mostly they are limited to bouncers at at a nightclub / bar, and so forth.

2. Second, who is he an agent of. Is he an agent of the fear clear with 4 people. And are they agents of TMO the organization. They were clearing out some monkeys for their 9th alts, when no raid mobs where up. So even if you can claim his act of retaliation was somehow as an agent of the 5 other TMO there, it is then difficult to say that that small group were agents of TMO on official TMO employment. Such a view would make every activity in the game fall within furthering whatever persons guild's interests.

Dolic

[Kekephee]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The sad thing is you actually believe what you think.

For several months now there has been a long history of forgoing the raid mob that day plus the next one if any type of negligence occurs during an engagement. Your attempt to jam the incident with dinacarl into the scenario provided by ambrotos is glaringly weak seeing as there was no raid encounter to forgo.

Loraens idea that a raid offense is determined by the entity trained not by the identity trainer is also equally devoid of logic, and cannot be found within any concept contrived and recognize by men who make a living making and accepting arguments such as principles of Vicarious liability, agency, or negligent entrustment. Your best bet is under a theory of control via your boy unbrella; but suspicion is not a substitute for evidence.

Thank god none of you are able to sit on a jury .... Wait ... Fuck us all.

Dolic

Untrue

First result on google shows that employers can be held liable for employee actions


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...cts-29638.html

[Fael]

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It was actually just RNF-style snark, sorry you wasted your law degree responding to it seriously.

So when chest takes such hard lines... And is dead fucking serious about it (I had the great pleasure of listening to his vent recording), are we to believe that he is just being RNF snarky?

It's hard to differentiate seeing as everyone in bda are toeing the same party line.

Dolic

[Kekephee]

Originally Posted by Kekephee [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Untrue

First result on google shows that employers can be held liable for employee actions


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...cts-29638.html

Actually I think you were saying something else than what I thought you were saying, disregard that. I was half-reading and thought you were referring to the responsibility of the guild leadership for their members' actions, not the status of the raid as being a raid.


Question: When you say

"Loraens idea that a raid offense is determined by the entity trained not by the identity trainer"

do you mean "the people who did the training should get to decide whether the people they trained were a raid"? Because why would that make any sense?

[Duckwalk]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Only if they ordered, ratified, or were negligent in what happened. A UPS driver hitting someone on a frolic (getting drive-through while working an 18 hour shift) would likely make UPS liable. Similarly if they later went "Good job on hitting him!" & cut the guy a check (like an NFL tackle bounty program), or if they knew the guy had 50 accidents on his record and still let him drive. Note that apparent authority can create liability, but that is a very fact specific situation, and generally no one ever has apparent authority to commit a crime or anything like that.

However, the driver going out of his way to shoot 50 people when he has no prior record and appeared entirely stable generally absolves the principle of liability.

The common example I'm talking about is when a bouncer batters someone in the process of throwing them out of a club. In that scenario, the master (club) is liable for the intentional tort (battery) because the action benefits the master.

[Kekephee]

Actually, don't answer that, it doesn't matter anyway, fuckin thing is over, I'm moving on