Random babbling in the Court Room

So is this a Judicial Review or another snow job do avoid facing the issue?!

Taking away the edit function without informing the account holder as to why is a poor precedent!! The reason for taking away the edit function is not credible at all!!

Its just Flem throwing his toys out of the pram again when people disagree with him!!

Whether editing posts comes under Free Speech is debatable, but if almost all other accounts have that ability then I cannot see why a Deputy Minister would not, especially as the other Deputies do!!

Are we seeing the emergence of Twoslit...err...mark II?
 
The 'I'm Root Admin and what I say goes' argument....

I've seen this used before, it was.... oh, I remember...

It was about an hour before Taijitu was founded....
 
Your right to free speech has not been taken from you, the edit function is inconsequential to your being able to express yourself. However, it is disturbing that an alteration to a member account was enacted without consulting the rest of the moderation team. I believe from past experience it was customary to alert the member to the change in their account, and have a discussion thread with the moderation team. That such action was taken without any notification to either party is a disturbing thing indeed, especially when justification of the action boils down to "I didn't like what he was saying."
 
I'm sorry - that is simply impossible. You aren't a government official; in fact, you haven't been back long enough to be in the ruling clique yet. As such, you are simply incapable of perpetrating, or causing to be perpetrated, such an egregious violation of the absolute and fundamental right to go "No, wait, I never said that.".

Edit - because Deputies don't count. :eyebrow:
 
Byardkuria:
I'm sorry - that is simply impossible. You aren't a government official; in fact, you haven't been back long enough to be in the ruling clique yet. As such, you are simply incapable of perpetrating, or causing to be perpetrated, such an egregious violation of the absolute and fundamental right to go "No, wait, I never said that.".

Edit - because Deputies don't count. :eyebrow:
Click to expand...
:rofl:
 
Thank you DD for your viewpoint and sensible statement. So, the court has essentially upheld what Flem has done to my account. What a lovely precedent to set.
 
I apologize for sounding sarcastic and irritated in my last post. And yes losing ones ability to edit a post is not a HUGE deal. It does impinge on my rights as a forum member who, a forum member who did not violate TNP law or the TOS. A forum member who received no prior warning of said action by the root admin? The root admin had no discussion and did not notify the other admins/mods of this action. Are these the types of precedents we wish to establish? Are these the actions of a region that upholds personal freedom and democratic ideals?

Maybe this was an isolated incident, and maybe this won't happen again. And I hope that is the case. At least in my mind I now wonder what might happen to my account next if I tick off the root admin, even if I did not violate a single law or provision of the TOS. This is not a comfortable position to be in.
 
So, I can spy on TNP and say that that nation was a different character or...?

Not that I am because I'm not a member of the Defense organization thingy.
 
Mr.Gaunt:
flemingovia:
I thank the court for its review and guidance.
Click to expand...
Thank you every much. It is always appreciated when someone appreciates our hard work for TNP and every TNP citizen. :tb2:
Click to expand...
I appreciate the work our court does, and I would have supported conclusion, whether it was in my favor or not, if it was rooted in logic.

What I do not support is unilateral actions against another forum member who did not break the rules, or the TOS. As it seems logical that the main way any action could be taken against a forum member is if they broke TNP law or the TOS. A player should not be punished for having ticked someone off.

I question how the court, in good faith, can support what Flem did.
 
Joshua, now might be a good time to show you have some understanding of the appropriate use of the editing feature. It is considered in very poor form to post something, then edit it away as if it were never said. While it is understandable that individuals sometimes have a change of heart after they have posted something, the proper thing to do is to make a second post, explaining one's change of opinion.

I'm sure if you convey an appreciation for this convention, your editing rights will be restored.
 
I question how the court, in good faith, can support what Flem did
Click to expand...

I didn't support what he did? I told you this wasn't a free speech issue as you are still able to express yourself freely, so the Court made a ruling.

Also it is apparent in my post that I did not like the action taken by Flem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top