The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II DISCUSSION

It isn't helped by the constant flow of puerile and irritating threads that are being generated either, is it. Who's next? Describe the person above? Where does my cat crap? it' clogs the discussion board and makes it look as if TNP is populated by dullards and unimaginative dullards at that.

Oh for some reasoned debate and intellectually challenging conversation.

VP :noangel:
 
mmm. NBot sure I agree. OOC threads as well as more serious debate have both always been a feature and strength of TNP. in times gone by both have thrived, neither flourishing to the detrement of the other.

I must admit I like the sound of "where does my cat crap". I may start the thread.
 
I would strongly object to you using Where Did My Cat Crap as it would clearly discriminate against those of us who do not possess a cat and more importantly adversely impact on my negotiations with Simon Cowell who I hope will shortly be launching it as a celebrity TV show franchise.

VP :noangel:
 
Given the way the defence "case" is progressing, can i suggest a way to shorten proceedings?

Blue Wolf (or his counsel, whatshisname the invisible man) gets 20 questions, to which the witness can only answer "yes" or "no".

After 20 questions the defence has to guess the witnesses' name, or at least whether he is animal, vegetable or mineral.

EDIT: DISCLAIMER. THE ABOVE IS HUMOUR.
 
You know Flemmy, for one who likes to bitch about how he was kicked out of TNP in an abortion of justice under Pixiedance, you sure are quick to strip others from the right of a fair trial.
 
IT would be a short thread. Everyone knows cats use a toilet like the rest of us.

cat-pooping-toilet-trained-717556.jpg


oh... and since BW has a problem identifying humour, I will tag my posts from now on.

THE ABOVE IS HUMOUR.
 
blue wolf:
Mystery Witness, in that supposed conversation with the Defendant where their any other details given about this alleged "plot" against TNP?
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

I challenge the witness to answer the question as presented by the defendant.

THE ABOVE IS SERIOUS. I REALLY REALLY WANT TO SEE HIM/HER TRY
 
Joy of joys, the trial is back and moving at somepace towards a conclusion I would say as it's getting down to the key point of if there indeed was a plot then:

What was it?

Who was involved?

Where is the concrete evidence to support the above claims?

And all in time for a Bank Holiday weekend too.

VP :noangel:
 
I think that undermining the accusation pretty much falls into the category of an effective defence. So far there has been no clear evidence of any of the three points I keep mentioning, and without these being proven then the accused has no case to answer.

That is if we are working on a principle of innocent until proven guilty though and if it is a case of guilty until you prove your innocenc e then God help us all.

VP :noangel:
 
I think in your case, you're trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll.

WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?1 WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!11
 
I think you're confusing your case against me with general paranoia, Sniffles. Don't worry though, its not a big deal, people do it all the time.

Flemmy, in case you've not noticed, which it seems you’ve not due to the outstanding level of ignorance you’ve been displaying, the Prosecution has presented a case based upon horrible evidence, general speculation, and a guy, whom shall not be named, who thinks that one time the Defendant might have said something that might imply that an act of Treason or Sedition might happen, with no proof that any such act did happen or even was going to happen.

The Defense really doesn't even need to present an argument against such skewed and badly assembled evidence, it more or less speaks for itself, and what it says raises some very interesting questions about the motives of those who filed charges against me.
 
BW:
And the Defense, for the record, will still ask the Secret Witness to back up any claims of Treason or Sedition that they may have since we can do that. If they choose not to provide such information that would support said claims, however, the Defense really isn't worrying about it.
Click to expand...

It's up the Defence to find their own proof that absolves them, not to beg witnesses on the stand for a freebie.

I'd do a facepalm and wonder if you even know what you're doing, but it's been pretty obvious for a while now.
 
WSorry Mr S but yet again your fundamental ignoranceof how a legitimate judicial system works is glaringly obvious. I'm not saying that to be insulting, you just don't know what you are talking about. Sorry but it's true.

VP :noangel:
 
Just had a short but interesting discussion on IRC about how far Real life legal principles and burdens of proof can be applied to an electronic role playing game.
 
I cannot speak for the discussion, but I am coming to the conclusion that trying to apply the procedures and principles of real life justice process to an online situation is folly.

It is just too easy to bollocks around with the process - see the current trial, passim.
 
It's up the Defence to find their own proof that absolves them, not to beg witnesses on the stand for a freebie.
Click to expand...

Fail.

It's called questioning the witness, the Defense doesn't need to present their own independent evidence that hails their innocence, in this case we only need to prove that the evidence the Secret Witness provided is total crap based on solely on assumption.

We asked them to provide more evidence to support their claims not for our sake, but for theirs. If they can not provide physical proof that an act of Treason or Sedition occurred then their claims are significantly weakened if not totally irrelevant. As it stands, that "evidence" that the witness proved does not prove a crime, it only implies that one *might* happen, which doesn't prove anything at all.

No hard evidence has been provided and no physical proof that a crime has been committed has been put forth. All you have, Sniffy, is a bunch of people who are of the opinion that something *might* have happened that *might* have been a crime with no solid proof to support such claims.

If this were RL, this case would have been dismissed pre-trial due to a lack of physical evidence.


Flemmy:
I cannot speak for the discussion, but I am coming to the conclusion that trying to apply the procedures and principles of real life justice process to an online situation is folly.

It is just too easy to bollocks around with the process - see the current trial, passim.
Click to expand...

I guess the phrase "months of pre-trial litigation" has never reached your ears. If this was RL, we wouldn't even be in the trial phase yet. Trust me, this is nowhere near as bad as Real Life :3
 
I have a fair amount of experience with the British legal system, which is much more sensible, it seems, than the American system. But even the British system could not work in Nationstates.
 
Please show me a trial where the Prosecution is allowed to admit hearsay, speculation, and rumor as evidence, get away with it for a majority of the trial, and then bitch when things start to go against them.

Cry me a river.
 
So what was the crux of the discussion Flem, I'd be interested to hear what was discussed and if not the system then maybe the principles of the English legal system could be introduced to TNP.

I tried finding your discussion IRC but being a techno-numpty I was as successful in locating it as Ricky Ponting was in retaining the Ashes.

VP :noangel:

PS which side of the dock did you pick up your legal experience Flem, anything sordid we should know about?
 
Mr Snif, as a wise man once said "When you are at the bottomof a hole it's time to stop digging". You obviously have no idea how a judicial system works do you, so here is a free lesson.

Prosecution put forward case.

Defence attempts to refute case by either producing contradicting evidence or showing that the prosecutions evidence is not safe.

Simple really.

VP :noangel:
 
Wow Sniff, you really aren’t too bright, are you?

The only reason why I asked that the Witness support any claims with evidence is because I didn't want to run into the whole Blade situation were he was spewing off totally unfounded bullshit, some of which was a blatant fabrication of his own mind, and trying as hard as he could to pass it off as well supported truth.

Sniffy, let me tell you this, if the Witness does not provide additional evidence, I'm quite happy. Let me repeat that, I don't want him to submit additional evidence.

The less proof he gives (and, by-the-by, Exhibit C is not "proof", by any stretch of the imagination, of a crime) the weaker the case is against me.

Seriously Sniffles, its not that hard to figure out here, and you're just making yourself look like an idiot.
 
So what was the crux of the discussion Flem
Click to expand...

I did not keep a log, but this and other discussions I have had pretty much came down to the fact that while a real-life trial may focus on forensic evidence (particularly nowadays), in Nationstates evidence like logs, screenshots etc will always be open to question and innuendo, much as I think Blue Wolf and his invisible attourney is doing in this trial. For example....

Firstly I wonder if the 'Evil Wolf' cited in the above chatlog was actually the same player that controls Blue Wolf II or was it an imposter?
Click to expand...

But Nationstates is a relational game, where people are more likely to know each other fairly well (unlike RL where the jury will not know the accused or witnesses, for example). So personal testimony, knowledge of character etc is likely to be more important in an NS trial.

Blue Wolf's council stated at the beginning of the trial the course the defence would take:

We the defense seek to demonstrate the fanciful and jocular nature of Blue Wolf II's "plans." We will then show that he failed to act on any of said "plans" further indicating the jocular nature thereof.
Click to expand...

I think JAL showed a greater understanding of NS trials than Blue Wolf has demonstrated: This was a plausible line of defence, given what we all know of Blue Wolf's character. Was BW intent on raiding TNP, or was he messing about? A fruitful line of defence, and one that might have sown enough uncertainty to have got BW off the hook.

insead, Blue Wolf has taken a different tack with his defence - spending pages questioning the physical evidence of the logs and the identity of the protected witness. But everyone knows that logs can be falsified, so the verdict would have taken that into account, and the identity of the witness was protected by the court, but was known by the trial judge and so would have been taken into account. Nor has BW said anything that suggests that his plans were "fanciful and Jocular."

Perhaps the defence will soon lose its obsession with fishing for the identity of the mystery witness, and will get back to the original course laid out by the defence counsel.

What Blue Wolf has not done is knocked any holes in Erastide's testimony or Rhindon Blade's. And provided the court does not let this testimony be buried under pages and pages of irrelevancy, it is this testimony that might yet be what this trial hinges upon.

PS which side of the dock did you pick up your legal experience Flem, anything sordid we should know about?
Click to expand...

I plead the fifth, or fourth, or tenth or whichever one it is.
 
Flemmy:
Nor has BW said anything that suggests that his plans were "fanciful and Jocular."
Click to expand...

That's because there was no plan, Judge Flemmy.

Flemmy:
What Blue Wolf has not done is knocked any holes in Erastide's testimony or Rhindon Blade's.
Click to expand...

Rhindon Blade didn't answer any of the Defense questions and then spewed off into rambling non-sense, making up assertions and speculation based off of pure insane notions that only he can make sense of. Want me to provide you with examples, Sheriff Flemmy?


Probably not, you're more concerned with how the Defense actually defends himself than you are with the poor quality testimony and evidence against him, or even the matter of guilt or innocence. Isn't that right, Executioner Flemmy, you cheeky old man. :eyeroll:
 
Hang on, which am I? Judge, sherrif or executioner? I do not know whether to wear a wig a hat or a hood.

You might do better making some of these arguments in the court room rather than in a split discussion thread. If there was no plan, then Erastide is lying under oath. If you believe that, say it. Make your case.
 
These arguments have been made in court Flemmy, pay attention.

And the conversation with Eras does not mention any plan, just an idea which never saw the light of day.
 
No, nothing official, which is why I am not commenting in the trial itself, just in this split thread.

However, I accept you Congrads, whatever they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top