Am I totally out of line?

AlHoma

AlHoma

TNPer
I feel like I'm fighting a doubly uphill battle with the prosecution of the case of Fulhead Land. I follow the rules, quietly attempt to get the defense to obey the rules, file objections in the court, try to get the chief justice to step in when the justice in the case seems more interested in chasing clouds, etc.

My current issue is that I've maintained complete silence regarding ALL aspects of the case in accordance with the Gag rule (as any part can be seen as information privilaged to outsiders), yet the defense is posting willy nilly in the open in an attempt to sway the public oppinion regarding the case. I asked Poltsamaa niceley to discontinue his discussion in the thread as I believed that it was violating the spirit of the gag order.

At this rate I'm afraid that once the case is done I'm going to have to take annother sabattical from NS. It seems like I try so hard to give the defense a fair shake on the trial (as far as I can tell I did not have to give them my evidence before they entered there plea) yet they take every oppurtunity to defecate on me in response.

So, Am I totally out of line in expecting that rules will be enforced equally on both sides of the case?
 
They play their role, you play yours. From one who has sat in your seat, it is not an enviable position. It IS exhausting!

If it's any consolation, the judges as well as the entire system have also been under attack, not just you. So don't take it personally and try to have a thick skin about all the posturing. If you do see a specific post that crosses the line, go ahead and present the evidence in court and move that the offending party be found in contempt of the gag order. Right now, by my reading, the defense has been careful to only flirt with line.

If you do need to rant, PM me. I've been told I have a very sympathetic ear. :console:
 
You're really abusing privillege by talking about here. And for my thoughts on the case, is jury selection really that hard to commit too?

Until then I'm gagged, shit there's no smilie for that.
 
@ Alhoma...isn't it just Polts' usual tactic to browbeat the opposition until it gives up???

I think the reason the judges are not kicking off at him....is they will then be drawn into another diversionary "discussion" that will waste more time and energy....

IMHO you are doing a fine job of restraint.....

@ mr sniffles.....is my sarco-meter broken or are you serious....
 
*Hersfold is totally out of line here, but doesn't care too much in this case.

DD is a fair justice - were he not, he wouldn't be a Global Mod as well. You can trust him to rule on this case fairly. If Polts and FHL are really getting up your nerves (which I don't really blame you for, they're pissing me off too), just ignore them. If things get really bad, you would be well within your rights to request that one of the Justices - not necessarily DD - lock the topic. That's their nature, and despite many attempts to tell them that their behaivor isn't the most acceptable, they continue.

And by the way, DD is a global mod, so he can read this if he really wants to. ;)

@ Sniffles: colon-notalk-colon = :notalk:
 
This is Poltsamaa's speciality. he tries to get under the skin. It does not matter what you do - Poltsamaa will whine and bleat about it, in a vaguely nasally way.

it is this delightful aspect of his personality that makes him the sixth biggest arsehole I have encountered in this game. The flaw is in him, not in you.
 
The other irony is this: does anyone really believe that if the jury selection was rigged, that Nish would be on the jury? Nish has been part of the Lexicon from the very beginning, and is still, I believe, an active Lexiconian.

To be honest, if I were prosecution counsel, I would be objecting to that juror like a shot.

F.
 
Great Bights Mum:
flemingovia:
it is this delightful aspect of his personality that makes him the sixth biggest arsehole I have encountered in this game. The flaw is in him, not in you.
Click to expand...
*Tries to guess Flem's top 5* ;) :lol:
Click to expand...
I certainly hope that I am at least in the top 2! :lol:

At any rate - Polsty is deliberately abrasive as a matter of course and that is his tactic - to distract his opposition from where they need to be concentrating.

If you really want to get at him - ignore him, or rather ignore and refuse to address anything he bring up that is irrelevent. But let him know what is irrelevent and then castigate him soundly for being irrelevent. It drives him nuts. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top