Guidelines

Trials based on the result of prosecutions will be held here.

Starter Threads will contain the next format:

Topic: Member's username. Accusation.

Content:

Member has been accused of x, w and z given the next evidence:

X: ssdsdshdgs

W: ***** you babyraping cocksucker!

Z: Created thread "My booty is nice" in WR Politics and Elections.

Therefore he has violated a, b, c, d and e guidelines.

The poster will propose a decision to be made with this indvidual and will fundament it well.

Replies to such threads must contain a well fundamented and substancial view on the issue. People will have to deffend, further condemn and proposed actions to be taken with this individual.

The accused will be able to selfdefend.

Spam will result in 7 days to more depending on the seriousness of the offense. Not substanciated posts will be deleted given a reason.

This starter threads will be open for 3 days and then will be closed definitely. And will be followed by a poll thread which will contain:

Punishment A
Punishment B
Punishment C
Punishment D
Punishment just after reincidence
No punishment

They'll be open for 3 days.

After they're locked a veredict will be announced.

Finished trials will be sent to archive.

I must admit this look quite bureaucratic. Maybe we should keep trials simple so that anyone can voice his/her opinions easily.

Isnt it enough to mention who is accused of what and post a link to what he or she has done.

Kenzu wrote:

I must admit this look quite bureaucratic. Maybe we should keep trials simple so that anyone can voice his/her opinions easily.

Isnt it enough to mention who is accused of what and post a link to what he or she has done.

We'll be in charge of bureacracy while people can voice their opinions freely in "Voice of the people".

Here will be exclusively for resolutions on certain individuals, their defense, prosecution and punishment. This has to be organised and serious so that we don't fall in the kind of degradation we've fell before.

To follow your own guidelines, every post in my "Trial" is considered spam. None of them follow ANY form of evidence, nor do they show anything of relevance to what I'm accused of. With the exception of the first post, the others contain no evidence.

Being compared to someone else without proof is NOT evidence.

If you allow this, you're breaking your own guidelines, especially as Zealot also posted something concerning the SAME offense.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

damn this is wierd, kenzu im afraid of you now.

This comment made me picture this scenario:

Kenzu: Hey, could you join my forum and troll it? It's just there's some guys opposing me... I'll support you!
trolltocome: sure! I love to antagonize!

That is not evidence, it's conjecture. By rights, all the other posts should have been deleted because there is no evidence in them whatsoever.

kismet wrote:

To follow your own guidelines, every post in my "Trial" is considered spam. None of them follow ANY form of evidence, nor do they show anything of relevance to what I'm accused of.

Those guidelines are relatively old and given the forum dynamics in the past months lots of things have been subject to defacto change.

Either way, there's evidence of your intentions.

kismet wrote:

Being compared to someone else without proof is NOT evidence.

I don't know about others, but I didn't compare you to anyone and much less presented that as evidence.

kismet wrote:

That is not evidence, it's conjecture. By rights, all the other posts should have been deleted because there is no evidence in them whatsoever.

And who claimed it to be evidence?

And, who contextually defined "spam" here?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

kismet wrote:

To follow your own guidelines, every post in my "Trial" is considered spam. None of them follow ANY form of evidence, nor do they show anything of relevance to what I'm accused of.

Those guidelines are relatively old and given the forum dynamics in the past months lots of things have been subject to defacto change.

Either way, there's evidence of your intentions.

kismet wrote:

Being compared to someone else without proof is NOT evidence.

I don't know about others, but I didn't compare you to anyone and much less presented that as evidence.

kismet wrote:

That is not evidence, it's conjecture. By rights, all the other posts should have been deleted because there is no evidence in them whatsoever.

And who claimed it to be evidence?

And, who contextually defined "spam" here?

So just someone saying "agreed" or "watermelon" or somesuch isn't spam? In other threads you've done just that, considered it spam and deleted it. You have 2 quotes against me. One was made in jest with humor and sarcasm including smilies. The other was made more as a point that you weren't following your own rules and had it been fixed without further comment, I'd have deleted my post without anything further. No one else is giving any kind of evidence -ZERO-. Whether or not these guidelines are "old" they're still valid since they're still posted.

kismet wrote:

So just someone saying "agreed" or "watermelon" or somesuch isn't spam? In other threads you've done just that, considered it spam and deleted it.

Context. Here is a trial section. If Someone makes a proposal and other has nothing to add and just agrees, he can say he agrees. Period.

And again, where's the in context definition of spam?

kismet wrote:

You have 2 quotes against me. One was made in jest with humor and sarcasm including smilies.

Context. For me those smileys could mean nothing more than just your expression of joy for doing what you do.

kismet wrote:

The other was made more as a point that you weren't following your own rules and had it been fixed without further comment, I'd have deleted my post without anything further. No one else is giving any kind of evidence -ZERO-.

For me the fact that you come and point out that I'm "breaking my rules" when certainly it's not true, saying that you're here to antagonize me are enough evidence of your intentions. Sum your interventions in regards to teh policies of the site and we're set.

kismet wrote:

Whether or not these guidelines are "old" they're still valid since they're still posted.

They're simply proposed guidelines with interim value.

I express joy in other ways. Smilies are used on this forum for many reasons. Most of the time in *fun* or *jest*, not to express joy over such things.

You still haven't looked at any of my other posts have you? The ones that were not in the voting threads or AW section?

Just remember the charge you made was "Sabotage" not "trolling." Trolling has a lower sentence - generally speaking what, a week ban or just a few days?

I have made my final statement in my trial thread. Railroading people isn't pretty and it certainly isn't flattering of those doing it. New visitors to the site will see it and know.

kismet wrote:

I express joy in other ways. Smilies are used on this forum for many reasons. Most of the time in *fun* or *jest*, not to express joy over such things.

Smileys allow for relative interpretation being this heavily under the influence of context.

kismet wrote:

You still haven't looked at any of my other posts have you? The ones that were not in the voting threads or AW section?

Obviously yes. So? I'm merely saying that you mainly come here to destabilize rather than interact in a sane manner.

kismet wrote:

Just remember the charge you made was "Sabotage" not "trolling." Trolling has a lower sentence - generally speaking what, a week ban or just a few days?

We take trolling seriously here.

kismet wrote:

I have made my final statement in my trial thread. Railroading people isn't pretty and it certainly isn't flattering of those doing it. New visitors to the site will see it and know.

We'll see.