oh noes, spok banned!~

[naez]

if it makes you feel better ill let you know youd be luck to get $30 not $300 so no big loss tbh hth

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

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

Have fun with it man. I am done with this place lol.

You gotta do it Abacab hard, or not at all bro

[Ronas]

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

Then all of a sudden he says "I am Uthgaard and suddenly it is Uthgaard saying "I tried to give you the stick but you kept running around you little prick"

Now stop and bend over

[Zadrian]

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

I am just amazed that a majority of cool people I played on P99 with are still here with shitheads like you around. WOW!

Yeah, I think I am gonna go play another game in the future for sure. This shit is just dumb as hell and people going out of their way to get others banned?

WTF?

So let me get this straight...because this is what P99 promotes:

One GM who flies off the handle and makes impulsive decisions based on lack of measurable information who is not paid so everything he does is justified by that reasoning. Yes, that was one long sentence!

Players who maliciously get other players banned

Players who intentionally grief others and stretch rules for their own gain/benefit?

Really? Who the fuck would want to play here. /wave

Isn't that you?

[Swordsly]

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

Have fun with it man. I am done with this place lol.

Where u going spok? the bitch room is the other way bro

[vitalious]

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

Yeah all 7 pages are my posts...haha

I am working ATM - this is entertaining me in between my responsibilities. I don't have the time to implement my "impending doom" plan until next weekend.

I fully accept responsibility for my actions. I would have gladly accepted a ban had I agreed to a cash trade and made an attempt to do it. This is not just about the ban, it's about how Douchegaard handles things.

If the GM's read the email they know my intent wasn't getting cash out of a trade. I threw it in as an option if they really wanted the account and did not have anything I was interested in trading for.

But flame on and call me a cowardly narcissistic douchebag. Doesn't bother me @ all.

I'm starting to think you haven't read your own e-mail or you're so desperate to defend your actions and paint uth as some unreasonable ass, that you're not comprehending what you write. In the above statement you contradict yourself and you have throughout the entire thread.

You attempted a cash transaction when you wrote an amount."but but, I only did it if he had nothing else I wanted." So if he had nothing else that you wanted and was willing to spend $300, would you have turned him down and declined? If so, why post an amount in the first place? If your answer is "I just threw it in there in case he didn't have an account I wanted", then you're using circular logic which criminals use to justify a crime when they are caught. Don't ignore this post and respond to the flame posts. Give a legitimate answer, but Im willing to bet you won't because there isn't one.

If you want a real world example of how you are wrong, then this is like To Catch A Predator. You didn't have sex with the kid(rmt), but you showed intent by offering sex.(email)

[Zadrian]

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

I'm starting to think you haven't read your own e-mail or you're so desperate to defend your actions and paint uth as some unreasonable ass, that you're not comprehending what you write. In the above statement you contradict yourself and you have throughout the entire thread.

You attempted a cash transaction when you wrote an amount."but but, I only did it if he had nothing else I wanted." So if he had nothing else that you wanted and was willing to spend $300, would you have turned him down and declined? If so, why post an amount in the first place? If your answer is "I just threw it in there in case he didn't have an account I wanted", then you're using circular logic which criminals use to justify a crime when they are caught. Don't ignore this post and respond to the flame posts. Give a legitimate answer, but Im willing to bet you won't because there isn't one.

If you want a real world example of how you are wrong, then this is like To Catch A Predator. You didn't have sex with the kid(rmt), but you showed intent by offering sex.(email)

I already tried to get a real answer out of him, all I got was overly defensive responses.

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

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

If you want a real world example of how you are wrong, then this is like To Catch A Predator. You didn't have sex with the kid(rmt), but you showed intent by offering sex.(email)

Funny you mention that, there was a great ethical debate over journalism involving that program, since media is supposed to be "indifferent" and merely report happenings and fact... "To catch a predator" actually removed journalism from information gathering and moved it into vigilantism which was to be exploited for ratings.

Because of this reason and "intent" being the factor very few convictions were upheld and usually the only indictments came from previous sex offenders which were NOT supposed to use the internet at all, so they ended up violating their parole and being sent back to prison.

But I will agree that "intent" is a gray area which can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Would intent be merely speaking of the action? Or would it be in the process of performing? If Spok was merely talking about RMT then by the staff they decided this was "intent" but in my view and probably Spok's, intent would be linking to Paypal or dropping moneygram addresses, because at that point it would be "in process" but the crime in question hasn't yet been committed (because the trade would had to have taken place: post facto)

In my opinion things should only be prosecuted or punished based on post-facto and not the idle words and thoughts of the derranged

[baalzy]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[jarooneh]

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

I already tried to get a real answer out of him, all I got was overly defensive responses.

Oh I have not be defensive at all. I offered cash as an option. If the account would have been banned because of a cash transaction I would have accepted the consequences. I have never denied this.