Jump to content

A Message from Roz Wei and Roz the departed


AkAk
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

There's a vitally important consideration that people seem to not be realizing:

The porn links weren't obfuscated. They weren't traps. They weren't shortened. They were straight up links to a site with the top level domain name literally and proudly being pornhub.

There's no argument to be made that Roz was distributing unwanted or unexpected pornography, because he simply wasn't. The URLs made their content abundantly clear, and thus Roz is no more culpable of wrongdoing than Google Inc. would be if a minor puts 'big titties' into the search bar and hits enter. Messaging people with mean words is more banworthy than what he did. It's not like he linked goatse from an imgur link, he was completely upfront.

He literally did nothing wrong.

if i break the rules in a blatant way,,,, surely it means i am not breaking the rules

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, rey said:

if i break the rules in a blatant way,,,, surely it means i am not breaking the rules

What rule did he break? Which one? Let's check the options.

In-game Communication
"All forms of in-game communication, including but not limited to, messaging, war declaration reasons, alliance announcements, leader, city, or nation names, and nation and alliance descriptions must be appropriate. Vulgar language, mean comments, Nazism or Nazi related names and titles, Terrorist organizations related names and titles etc. are not allowed and will result in your nation receiving a strike."

Vulgar language? No. Well, yes, but that particular rule refers to 'f**k' and 'c**t' etc, not words on the tame side of language like 'porn' or 'dick'. This game is PG-13, or else Alex wouldn't legally be able to collect email addresses in the USA. (If he ever admits to knowingly collecting email addresses from anyone under 13, then he is actually and legitimately in violation of US federal law and the whole site would have to be brought down and he'd be fined punitive damages with minimums that are set to be threatening to multi-national entertainment corporations. Somehow I doubt donators have given him hundreds of millions.) Mean comments and the rest, not even close. Besides, even naming a nation and all the cities in it 'naziville' or 'f**k n*ggers' would result in a strike, not a ban, according to the rule as it is written. This is my main complaint with how moderation is handling this, btw: the arbitrary inconsistency.

Harassment
"Using in-game communication to flame, bait, troll, or otherwise harass other players will result in your nation receiving a strike, or in severe instances your account being banned."

Sure, he definitely engaged in baiting and trolling. But so has literally everyone that's ever postured on the forums about their war performance (that's both IQ and anti-IQ) or made an alliance themed on the Crusades (KT) or made a DoW roleplaying as muslims in order to trigger alliances themed on the Crusades (BK). Roz didn't make hidden 'shock' links, he didn't embed images, he didn't even create a functional hyperlink. He could have uploaded homosexual gore to imgur and sent that, and believe me I've seen it happen to communities just like this one, but instead he took the highest road possible.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

What rule did he break? Which one? Let's check the options.

In-game Communication
"All forms of in-game communication, including but not limited to, messaging, war declaration reasons, alliance announcements, leader, city, or nation names, and nation and alliance descriptions must be appropriate."

I assume that appropriate means basically the same thing as in the forum rules, which explicitly prohibit pornography.  I agree that the rules are often vague and moderation often arbitrary, but this really isn't one of those cases.

  • Upvote 6

Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]>    God your worse the grealind >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Betulius said:

I assume that appropriate means basically the same thing as in the forum rules, which explicitly prohibit pornography.  I agree that the rules are often vague and moderation often arbitrary, but this really isn't one of those cases.

Yeah, on the forums. Where images can actually be posted in a viewable format. Even the forum rules don't actually say anything about links.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yeah, on the forums. Where images can actually be posted in a viewable format. Even the forum rules don't actually say anything about links.

You can send actual images in in-game messages too, with the [ img ] tag

Edited by Betulius
it tried to actually use the tag smh
  • Upvote 2

Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]>    God your worse the grealind >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26. 04. 2018. at 4:15 PM, Big Brother said:

Wrong. No one agreed that there aren't any children here, you just don't know how age of majority works, apparently. Teenagers are children, until they reach an age recognized by law to qualify them as adults.

"The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law. It is the moment when minors cease to be considered such and assume legal control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18. The word majority here refers to having greater years and being of full age as opposed to minority, the state of being a minor. The law in a given jurisdiction may not actually use the term "age of majority". The term typically refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority does not necessarily correspond to the mental or physical maturity of an individual."

Which means that if you're under the age of 18, in most countries, you are legally a child. Of course, this in turn means that a lot of people playing this are children. Bottom line is, you're wrong and you don't really know what you're talking about. Amazing, considering the fact that you could have looked this up just as easily as I did and you could have corrected your own opinion according to the facts. Instead, you chose to spew bullshit. Gg man, lol.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/child

Word children had double meaning, it can be taken as either below the age of majority (for which word minor is better applicable) OR below the age of puberty, which is bascially before they become teenagers. So when you use word "CHILDREN" ofc most people would think you mean pre-teen, to which I agree, showing porn is bad, however we're talking about teenagers here AT WORST, as far as we know, only adults got the links to the porn! So again you either agree to the facts or you disregard all the facts and screem pedofile at top of your lungs, but we all know who's full of bullshit and who speaks the truth. And finally, while at topic of law. just casue something is against law, it's not necesarilly bad. Just google random illegal bullshit things, for instance this: http://www.kickassfacts.com/30-interesting-and-unusual-things-that-are-illegal/ to know that law is made by humans, who are all flawed and have personal interests. For instance, in Croatia, it's illegal to have gay marriage, so I should assume gay marriages are bad casue my law says it's illegal? And one last thing, it's not like I'm against him getting banned, he got exactly what he wanted and I support it. I do take issue with bullshiters like @James II who claim he sent it to children (I've got the feeling he meant those under 13 years old, but maybe he just meant minors in general?) or that waste of air @Johnny Costello who's actively killing off our brain cells whenever he replys.

That's it from me on this shitfest of comments, feel free to reply, but please provide some tangible evidnece or proof of your claims, rahter than stating your subjective opinion as if it was an objective fact.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Betulius said:

I assume that appropriate means basically the same thing as in the forum rules, which explicitly prohibit pornography.  I agree that the rules are often vague and moderation often arbitrary, but this really isn't one of those cases.

Nothing beats vague rules and arbitrary moderation. There is ofc, random updates with unwanted and untested changes. But hey, he still get's his donatiions so he must be doing something right.

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DragonK said:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/child

Word children had double meaning, it can be taken as either below the age of majority (for which word minor is better applicable) OR below the age of puberty, which is bascially before they become teenagers. So when you use word "CHILDREN" ofc most people would think you mean pre-teen, to which I agree, showing porn is bad, however we're talking about teenagers here AT WORST, as far as we know, only adults got the links to the porn! So again you either agree to the facts or you disregard all the facts and screem pedofile at top of your lungs, but we all know who's full of bullshit and who speaks the truth. And finally, while at topic of law. just casue something is against law, it's not necesarilly bad. Just google random illegal bullshit things, for instance this: http://www.kickassfacts.com/30-interesting-and-unusual-things-that-are-illegal/ to know that law is made by humans, who are all flawed and have personal interests. For instance, in Croatia, it's illegal to have gay marriage, so I should assume gay marriages are bad casue my law says it's illegal? And one last thing, it's not like I'm against him getting banned, he got exactly what he wanted and I support it. I do take issue with bullshiters like @James II who claim he sent it to children (I've got the feeling he meant those under 13 years old, but maybe he just meant minors in general?) or that waste of air @Johnny Costello who's actively killing off our brain cells whenever he replys.

That's it from me on this shitfest of comments, feel free to reply, but please provide some tangible evidnece or proof of your claims, rahter than stating your subjective opinion as if it was an objective fact.

You're joking, right? My post wasn't my personal opinion, what I quoted about the age of majority and the legal definition of children is literally tangible evidence, not my subjective opinion. Not only are you defending an act that is in no way worthy of being defended, you are straight up denying facts even when presented with them. No one will fall for your poor attempt at relegating fact to personal opinion and it only serves to make yourself look unwilling to accept the truth.

Who's screaming pedophile? Sending children links to pornography doesn't make you a pedophile. Being attracted to children does. Please, stick to commenting on things that are actually being said or written instead of commenting on your own made up nonsense. As of right now, the main message of your posts is that you're the one full of bullshit, incapable of admitting to even the most basic truths if it means you have to admit to being wrong.

And yeah, I agree that just because something is against the law it's not necessarily bad, but this is not one of those cases, something that should be obvious. But hey, I guess you're too busy brown-nosing to develop a nuanced understanding of the morality of illegal actions before you open your mouth.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the legal definition of children, it is what it is. And it being what it is does in fact mean that you can make an argument rooted in fact and law that James II is right and Roz did actually send it to people that are underage, people that shouldn't have access to pornography and that can be defined as being children, which is not only very ethically or morally questionable, it's also possibly illegal (not that I care much about the law). But hey, it certainly wasn't surprising. Shitty people do shitty things all the time.

  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Who's screaming pedophile? Sending children links to pornography doesn't make you a pedophile. Being attracted to children does.

I'm just quoting this for the few people who told me that Rozalia was being a pedophile through this act.  They should really google up the definition of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'm just quoting this for the few people who told me that Rozalia was being a pedophile through this act.  They should really google up the definition of it.

You sound like you are talking about a certain snake.

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Big Brother said:

You're joking, right? My post wasn't my personal opinion, what I quoted about the age of majority and the legal definition of children is literally tangible evidence, not my subjective opinion. Not only are you defending an act that is in no way worthy of being defended, you are straight up denying facts even when presented with them. No one will fall for your poor attempt at relegating fact to personal opinion and it only serves to make yourself look unwilling to accept the truth.

Who's screaming pedophile? Sending children links to pornography doesn't make you a pedophile. Being attracted to children does. Please, stick to commenting on things that are actually being said or written instead of commenting on your own made up nonsense. As of right now, the main message of your posts is that you're the one full of bullshit, incapable of admitting to even the most basic truths if it means you have to admit to being wrong.

And yeah, I agree that just because something is against the law it's not necessarily bad, but this is not one of those cases, something that should be obvious. But hey, I guess you're too busy brown-nosing to develop a nuanced understanding of the morality of illegal actions before you open your mouth.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the legal definition of children, it is what it is. And it being what it is does in fact mean that you can make an argument rooted in fact and law that James II is right and Roz did actually send it to people that are underage, people that shouldn't have access to pornography and that can be defined as being children, which is not only very ethically or morally questionable, it's also possibly illegal (not that I care much about the law). But hey, it certainly wasn't surprising. Shitty people do shitty things all the time.

Perosnal opinion was directed towards other people I tagged in my reply, not you. And I'm not denying that he sent the porn or that he shouldn't be baned for it, for it is vaguely against rules, it is the fact that certaint people are trying to make it look as if he's the next hitler (not literally).

It doesn't, no. Still what I was trying to say is they are trying to make him look worse than what he really is by bringing children into discusion. (I did exaggerate there a bit, but it's not like noone did it before me in this thread, I need to make my claim as big as theirs :P )

That's debatable. Porn of itself is not harmful. By same definition you could make it illegal to play violent video games, or any FPS cause it's "bad for children". Teenagers across the world google porn themselfs, and watch it on daily basis. Clearly nothing is being done against it, so why persecute a man for something so tame and benign?

There is no legal definition of children, as word childern is not clearly defined. The legal definition is minors and adults (or majors). Bringing the word children is misleading. And again, I'm asking for proof of those claims. Which minors did he send the links to against their will? Or even one of those minors that actually asked for the link?

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII
On 4/27/2018 at 3:56 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

There's a vitally important consideration that people seem to not be realizing:

The porn links weren't obfuscated. They weren't traps. They weren't shortened. They were straight up links to a site with the top level domain name literally and proudly being pornhub.

There's no argument to be made that Roz was distributing unwanted or unexpected pornography, because he simply wasn't. The URLs made their content abundantly clear, and thus Roz is no more culpable of wrongdoing than Google Inc. would be if a minor puts 'big titties' into the search bar and hits enter. Messaging people with mean words is more banworthy than what he did. It's not like he linked goatse from an imgur link, he was completely upfront.

He literally did nothing wrong.

Holy frick sending people unsolicited porn links clearly is harassment.

But in your eyes daddy Roz never could do anything wrong eh?

Edited by Karl VII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Karl VII said:

Holy frick sending people unsolicited porn links clearly is harassment.

But in your eyes daddy Roz never could do anything wrong eh?

Sending people unsolicited links to things that they don't know what they are before actually going to the page is harassment. The degree of it can be as tame as linking to a classic music video, or it can be as bad as linking to homosexual gore porn, or even outright criminal as in the case of a cheese pizza link.

Sending people unsolicited links that are clearly labelled 'pornhub', and not even functional hyperlinks, and that's barely worse than a rickroll. It's not even as bad as, say, going to a discord server and copypasting 'who is baseball guy' for a few minutes. Which isn't even more than a prank.

If you seriously think that what he's done is even close to what true harassment can be, well, welcome to the internet and toughen your skin 'cos you're gonna have a bad time one day.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roz: Rock on.

  • Like 1

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If you seriously think that what he's done is even close to what true harassment can be, well, welcome to the internet and toughen your skin 'cos you're gonna have a bad time one day.

 

It doesn't matter what you think of how people 'should have' responded to Roz's message. 

I didn't copy and paste the link to see what vids he had sent me, but I also didn't ask for him to send me a message with links to porn and his weird interpretation of how this was his way of expressing art. Is there a problem with me not appreciating what Roz sent me 'because it's how the internet is'? Am I supposed to lay down the red carpet for King Roz because he is fighting for the freedom to troll or something?  

People also seem to be forgetting that Roz himself KNEW he would get banned for this. He WANTED to get banned. And he did. You should be happy he got booted out in style. 

I can't believe this is still being debated. I thought it was common courtesy/sense not to send random people links to porn when they didn't ask for it, but apparently it's not! 

Edited by Jeremy Graham
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2018 at 11:33 AM, DragonK said:

That's debatable. Porn of itself is not harmful. By same definition you could make it illegal to play violent video games, or any FPS cause it's "bad for children". Teenagers across the world google porn themselfs, and watch it on daily basis. Clearly nothing is being done against it, so why persecute a man for something so tame and benign?

I'm not sure anything is harmful by itself. For something to be harmful, it has to interact with something that is harmed. Regardless, you do know that movies and video games do have age restrictions? They might not be enforced by the law but they do exist and they exist for a reason. It can be harmful for children to be exposed to what we call adult content in general.

You saying that it's tame and benign (lol) is really nothing but your personal opinion, which many people don't agree with and you haven't exactly proved that your personal opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Just because you're ethically cool with teenagers (aka children) watching pornography doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for children to do that, and holding that opinion doesn't hold any worth or validity by itself, it doesn't prove anything conclusively. Nor does the lack of preventative measures against children being exposed to things that can potentially be harmful to them mean that people shouldn't try to take such measures in the present/future. It certainly doesn't mean that sharing adult content with children shouldn't be condemned as wrong. You're basically saying that because kids are looking at porn anyway, sending them more porn isn't really a big deal. But that's just apathy, it just means quitting and giving up. If more parents thought like you do, I would be seriously concerned about how kids are gonna end up in the future.

On 4/28/2018 at 11:33 AM, DragonK said:

There is no legal definition of children, as word childern is not clearly defined. The legal definition is minors and adults (or majors). Bringing the word children is misleading. And again, I'm asking for proof of those claims. Which minors did he send the links to against their will? Or even one of those minors that actually asked for the link?

Except there is a legal definition of children, as I showed you earlier. Minor = children. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. If you find using the word children or kids to be misleading, that's an individual problem of yours that I can only assume is a result of either your denial of simple facts or perhaps your failure to understand the things I've shown you. If your age is below the age of majority (which is usually either 18 or 21 and which "legally demarcates childhood from adulthood"), you are a minor and thus a child. It really isn't any more complicated than that. You can disagree with using minor and child interchangeably all you want but it would basically be the equivalent of denying the existence of gravity. Your disagreement doesn't change the truth and in this case it only ends up making yourself appear dishonest. Now, considering how easy it is for you to deny the facts, what's to stop you from doing the same should any proof be discovered? I get the feeling that you're more interested in sticking to your guns and convincing yourself that you're right than you are in actually learning the truth of things. Even if I could somehow figure out the identities and ages of every single person who received the links, there'd be no point to providing any proof if you're going to be unwilling to accept it as true. You are right about there being no proof though, so while I still consider it to be fairly likely that at least one minor received the links, I won't judge someone for an act that hasn't been proved to have taken place. I still believe sending the links to anyone to begin with was wrong and completely worthy of the ban. It was also kind of tame, I honestly expected something edgier and more megalomaniacal.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.