You. Goodbye my lover, goodbye my friendSo who are we cancelling in todays episode of who let out the aoezone pitchforks?
You. Goodbye my lover, goodbye my friendSo who are we cancelling in todays episode of who let out the aoezone pitchforks?
What you're talking about is already covered by "defamation". The actual content of the Terms and Rules is completely unchanged. By having a line about accusing others without proof there's no actual change made, it's just saying the same thing twice.Wrong, there was an update a few days ago where the red part was added, you should have gotten a notification that there was an update to the terms and rules and had to accept them.
The reason this was added was that there were a lot of topics accusing people where the accused had a lot to lose while the accuser has very little to lose. It has nothing to do with this topic in particular (as the rule was changed a few days).
You. Goodbye my lover, goodbye my friend
Kinda, but given that saying something defamatory is very broad and it wasn't really enforced, we made this new rule, which is hopefully more clear and will be more enforced.What you're talking about is already covered by "defamation". The actual content of the Terms and Rules is completely unchanged. By having a line about accusing others without proof there's no actual change made, it's just saying the same thing twice.
1. It had nothing to do with the felixaldi threadOn top of that I've already seen the original thread about this, in which there was no comments except for "#JusticeForBoo" deleted, judging by what OP said for not providing evidence, despite absolutely no claims having been made in there. New comments were also removed from the FelixAldi thread including those that didn't make any claims like #JusticeForBoo, and that thread was then immediately locked.
No, not really. Defamation is slander or libel against a person or their character, that's it's definition. It almost exclusively refers to purposely lying about or falsely accusing people, in both common and legal usages. The rules not being enforced is a problem, but I'm not sure why you'd add a reworded rule instead of just enforcing the existing one.Kinda, but given that saying something defamatory is very broad and it wasn't really enforced, we made this new rule, which is hopefully more clear and will be more enforced.
1. It had nothing to do with the felixaldi thread
2. It had no proof
The same goes for the #justice4boo posts, after the initial post was taken down there was no context for those posts and given they were in the wrong thread they were deleted.
No, not really. Defamation is slander or libel against a person or their character, that's it's definition. It almost exclusively refers to purposely lying about or falsely accusing people, in both common and legal usages. The rules not being enforced is a problem, but I'm not sure why you'd add a reworded rule instead of just enforcing the existing one.
You'll have to excuse me for being just a bit suspicious when all these rules suddenly start being enforced in regards to the same situation. Last I checked there isn't even a rule about posting in the wrong thread/commenting on things that don't have anything to do with the op. If rules start actually being enforced and people are expected to keep threads on topic I think that's great. I just take issue with trying to pretend like these are new rules when they've been there the whole time and been ignored until just a day ago.
You'll have to excuse me for being just a bit suspicious when all these rules suddenly start being enforced in regards to the same situation
It's not hard to understand. It was not an issue before but there has been a surge of such topics now that it forced a reaction.there were a lot of topics accusing people where the accused had a lot to lose while the accuser has very little to lose. It has nothing to do with this topic in particular
Besides, we need to protect and acquiesce to the almighty infallible streamers, less we incur tantrums directed towards this forum. Aghast, the thought of it.It's not hard to understand. It was not an issue before but there has been a surge of such topics now that it forced a reaction.
Besides, we need to protect and acquiesce to the almighty infallible streamers, less we incur tantrums directed towards this forum. Aghast, the thought of it.
Whether or not it is added twice or not is not really important imo, it's just some extra clarity. And as defamation is mostly used for purposely lying, this extra rule is nice as we (as mods) won't always know if someone is lying or not or falsely accusing people, but we can only ask for evidence.No, not really. Defamation is slander or libel against a person or their character, that's it's definition. It almost exclusively refers to purposely lying about or falsely accusing people, in both common and legal usages. The rules not being enforced is a problem, but I'm not sure why you'd add a reworded rule instead of just enforcing the existing one.
These rules got enforced once or twice before already, you just probably missed it. As I said, the rule is only in place for a few days, so this is one of the first instances, but not the first.You'll have to excuse me for being just a bit suspicious when all these rules suddenly start being enforced in regards to the same situation.
1) unpausing during a game is a bad move. But he waited a minute.
2) pausing a lost game is a bad move
3) game was 100% lost for Boo since min 25 basically. Just impossible to comeback with skirm pike and some capped rams vs Teutonic Knights, cavaliers, hc, bbc whatever.
both did a bad move that equals out. Just close it.
When Hera didn't resign a few days back vs villese, and a guy opened a thread. Most posts were favouring hera giving him benefit of the doubt. Kinda similar situation here but most people think the game was over so the OP should have resigned. Kinda favouring always the well known guy every where.
Just to clearify: I DON'T think hera should have resigned, its his decision as a player on when to resign. So is OPs here too.
I don't know what kind of needs the dog has, to be honest. Mine can't go out by herself and I usually am with her or clean after her when she doesn't manage to hold it in.If someone prolonging a game they have already lost can't even bother to spend 3 seconds quickly telling their opponent why they are asking them to wait then they do not deserve to have their opponent wait for them unless they genuinely did not have those 3 seconds and that is simply not the case for a dog needing to go outside.
Do you really let your opponent know exactly what you're going to do *every time* you pause? What if the dog was making a mess and he needed to stop it ASAP? Or, to take a completely different example, what if you get a phone call? What if you hear a weird sound? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of players just type "sec" or "min" when they pause and that's about it. If anything, they explain themselves when they return. As for the length of the pause, how many times have we seen Memb pause for a couple of minutes to say GN, or just talk, to his daughter and/or son? Why should we treat such pauses differently?It's just that if you have the time to say "sec" you have the time to say "brb dog gotta piss" so if you don't say that and you are already losing then it is hard to see how you have shown the courtesy towards your opponent necessary for them to show you the courtesy of waiting for your dog to piss. I agree that by itself unpausing is bad but the context here cannot be ignored in the way that some people want to ignore it. If Memb was not the first to transgress the mutual respect underlying pausing and did not change the outcome of the game by unpausing it is not reasonable to criticize him so heavily for doing this. He is obviously a polarizing figure and certainly not innocent of problematic behavior but that should be kept separate of how we analyze this specific incident.