Comments on TNP v. Gross

At this point I expect little satisfaction from Grosse. It is my belief that he lacks the maturity of character to admit that he was in the wrong, and that he lacks the common decency to apologise. That is a given. I believe that many who have known Grosse as long as I have would agree with that assessment.
Click to expand...

I believe he can't offer you an apology, but if you would like a long-winded post that misses the point, or some real life excuse that strains credulity, then you may still have some chance at satisfaction. :D
 
Democratic Donkeys:
At this point I expect little satisfaction from Grosse. It is my belief that he lacks the maturity of character to admit that he was in the wrong, and that he lacks the common decency to apologise. That is a given. I believe that many who have known Grosse as long as I have would agree with that assessment.
Click to expand...

I believe he can't offer you an apology, but if you would like a long-winded post that misses the point, or some real life excuse that strains credulity, then you may still have some chance at satisfaction. :D
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
So should we keep this thread for the new trial? It has such history within it...I think it should remain here for discussing the new trial.

My comment is that I am happy to see COE's judicial acumen, at least when it is in support of things I favor. :lol:
 
Having Grosse respond is great.

I must say that the judicial laws of TNP are being shown to be pretty farcical and while people have said so for years, this case should be exhibit A in support of such thinking.
 
Concerning Schnauzers comments, it would be crazy to require the RA to have a canon of laws, codes and statutes that is as comprehensive as those regulating RL countries. We don't have contract law, torts, family law, or even a significant body of case law. That shouldn't mean we can't have these types of issues addressed.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Concerning Schnauzers comments, it would be crazy to require the RA to have a canon of laws, codes and statutes that is as comprehensive as those regulating RL countries. We don't have contract law, torts, family law, or even a significant body of case law. That shouldn't mean we can't have these types of issues addressed.
Click to expand...
I have sigged that. quoted for truth.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Concerning Schnauzers comments, it would be crazy to require the RA to have a canon of laws, codes and statutes that is as comprehensive as those regulating RL countries. We don't have contract law, torts, family law, or even a significant body of case law. That shouldn't mean we can't have these types of issues addressed.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly how a 'common law' system developed over the centuries - You have certain principles that if called into question in an event that results in a conflict that is between two or more parties, and it appears that an injustice has occurred, the principled judgment of a 'fact finder' is binding if it complies with certain principles involved in such a 'complaint'. As a result, a broad or narrow precedent is set by a 'court' decision that is used as a basis for adjudicating similar cases that occur in the future. Some cultures choose to 'codify' such sensibilities while others don't, but in all situations, a precedent bases system involving torts is open to evolution and alteration through practice and custom.

In any society, real or 'virtual', there must be guidelines real or virtual to govern interpersonal relations otherwise chaos results.

We have seen over the years on this forum or earlier incarnations of this forum situations where one person is clearly harassing another person through slanderous statements that are game related. Two people get in an argument or a pissing match which is not 'illegal' under TNP Code and isn't even a violation of TOS warranting moderation by forum admins. Yet, nonetheless, despite no TNP Code violations or violation of TOS, an injury or injustice has occurred to one party or the other.

Now, such a dispute could be solved by simple and arbitrary forum administration action that may be tainted by the personal opinions of the administration, or we could simply apply certain principles common to and understandable to all here and adjudicate it as a 'civil' issue to resolve a conflict. That simple. No detailed legal code needed. It can be appealed, and in the end, hopefully, common sense prevails.

People on this forum for any number of years have complained that the legal system is a sham or a farce - and there is merit to that claim insofar as no real legal system that can adjudicate non-criminal issues involving interpersonal conflict that is disruptive to civil conduct has ever been permitted to develop. I think it's about time we deal with this type of matter. It is so simple to solve and set down in stone as to how it is accomplished.

All it takes is enough people to have the will to deal with it so as to bring about a more refined way to deal with it.
 
Yes. This is why, sometime in my lifetime, I hope to sit in a bar somewhere and get rip-roaring, boisterously drunk with Roman. I know I will forever remember it fondly, while at the same time have no recollection of what we talked about.
 
Romanoffia:
People on this forum for any number of years have complained that the legal system is a sham or a farce - and there is merit to that claim insofar as no real legal system that can adjudicate non-criminal issues involving interpersonal conflict that is disruptive to civil conduct has ever been permitted to develop. I think it's about time we deal with this type of matter. It is so simple to solve and set down in stone as to how it is accomplished.

All it takes is enough people to have the will to deal with it so as to bring about a more refined way to deal with it.
Click to expand...
The problem with this idea is that, unlike in real life, there is no way to either force someone to participate in a civil claim against them, or to actually provide compensation for any damages the complainant may have suffered. While a criminal case can result in a forum ban, loss of position, loss of posting privileges, etc, a civil case is much more limited in punishment scope. There's no equivalent to monetary awards... there's no way to force someone to apologize... Their very nature makes civil cases somewhat farcical.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I admire your ability to make a short point long. :D
Click to expand...

I've spent many years perfecting that talent. And, to make a long story even longer, well....... maybe not. :P :lol:

Great Bights Mum:
Yes. This is why, sometime in my lifetime, I hope to sit in a bar somewhere and get rip-roaring, boisterously drunk with Roman. I know I will forever remember it fondly, while at the same time have no recollection of what we talked about.
Click to expand...

That would be truly epic. Just as long as it isn't the Carson City Saloon. :lol:

SillyString:
Romanoffia:
People on this forum for any number of years have complained that the legal system is a sham or a farce - and there is merit to that claim insofar as no real legal system that can adjudicate non-criminal issues involving interpersonal conflict that is disruptive to civil conduct has ever been permitted to develop. I think it's about time we deal with this type of matter. It is so simple to solve and set down in stone as to how it is accomplished.

All it takes is enough people to have the will to deal with it so as to bring about a more refined way to deal with it.
Click to expand...
The problem with this idea is that, unlike in real life, there is no way to either force someone to participate in a civil claim against them, or to actually provide compensation for any damages the complainant may have suffered. While a criminal case can result in a forum ban, loss of position, loss of posting privileges, etc, a civil case is much more limited in punishment scope. There's no equivalent to monetary awards... there's no way to force someone to apologize... Their very nature makes civil cases somewhat farcical.
Click to expand...

There's no way to force someone to comply with criminal proceedings either. And if someone doesn't comply with a civil judgment, you can make failure to comply a criminal offense. Give the party found liable a choice - either comply with the civil offense or be subject to a criminal penalty just like in RL. That easy.
 
Romanoffia:
There's no way to force someone to comply with criminal proceedings either.
Click to expand...
Proceedings, no - result, yes. In criminal cases, defendants have an incentive to participate because criminal punishments can be imposed without their acquiescence. A ban from the forum or a removal from office doesn't rely on the person in question agreeing that that has happened.

I'm not sure it's the right approach to attach criminal penalties - if someone is ordered to apologize and does not, for example, how much sense does it make to go through a whole criminal trial, to ban them for a few months, only for them to still refuse to apologize? None of that accomplishes any kind of compensation for the injured party, just more vindictive punishment.
 
SillyString:
I'm not sure it's the right approach to attach criminal penalties - if someone is ordered to apologize and does not, for example, how much sense does it make to go through a whole criminal trial, to ban them for a few months, only for them to still refuse to apologize? None of that accomplishes any kind of compensation for the injured party, just more vindictive punishment.
Click to expand...
Once they refuse to co-operate it's no longer a civil matter, it's criminal. They would be guilty of an offense, and a punishment makes as much sense as it does for any other crime.
 
I am concerned that Grosse appears to be showing such contempt for the court. I don't believe he would agree to do as a ruling required of him. What punishment can there be for a root admin who refuses to comply with a court order?

Obviously it isn't at that point yet, but it may be.
 
Since when has Grosse shown anything but contempt for those he looks down on which is, from his perspective, just about everyone.*

It would be interesting to discover whether he would comply with any punishment the court decided to mete out. Being a root admin simply makes him technically untouchable.

*I believe.
 
I believe everyone should have something to believe in. I believe I will have another drink. :P



But seriously, if someone thumbs their nose at the court on a civil matter by refusing to comply with the judgment of the court, then all we need to to is to create a public 'pillary' in the form of a banner that displays the offender's name along with some kind of humiliating phrase or epithet. :lol:
 
To be fair to Grosse and the other admins (myself included). None of us have ever deleted posts just because we disagreed with them. deletion usually only occurs if there is a clear invisionfree TOS violation, which is rare.

Occasionally posts are edited to remove profanity, or moved to a lock box. But even this is quite rare.
 
mcmasterdonia:
The problem is that the thread or post could be removed by the individual who is being insulted by it ;)
Click to expand...
Then just add a disclaimer to the TOS that you may be subjected to humiliation and insults from time to time and that no one has a right to not be offended. :lol:
 
To be honest, I'm unsure how we will go about a civil trial. A civil case is a legal dispute between parties, not simply any dispute. We have no laws or precedent relating to civil disputes, as far as I can tell. And the plaintiff in this particular case claims no legal basis for his claims. Sorry, perhaps I'm missing something, but for good or bad it seems that this alleged injustice is not a legal injustice according to the laws and precedent of this region.
 
Some years ago I did a stint as AG with a nightmarish docket that included civil cases. They never came before the court because I was able to mediate a settlement and the parties withdrew their complaints. Perhaps a sensible thing to do would be to have the AG create a position of Special Mediator or Deputy Arbitrating AG and appoint someone who can settle civil grievances.
 
I cannot speak for other civil cases that have been brought, but this case for me was never about damages or punishment. I think most civil cases are not. It was about receiving an apology from Grosse (which, given his character and temperament I realised was a long shot) or, failing that, an acknowledgement from the court that, having examined the evidence I was not the sort of person that Grosse painted me to be.

That is enough. As I said in my original post all those months ago, my reputation as an admin is important to me.

I can understand Grosse's reluctance to appear in court. If I had simply lied and thrown crap at someone in the hope that some of it would stick, I would be looking for a loophole that enabled me to avoid facing the music too.
 
I am glad you went ahead and submitted the thread as evidence. There is no reason it should not be a matter of public record. Plus, I totally ruled in that thread. I want everyone to see how cool I am. :)
 
Great Bights Mum:
Some years ago I did a stint as AG with a nightmarish docket that included civil cases. They never came before the court because I was able to mediate a settlement and the parties withdrew their complaints. Perhaps a sensible thing to do would be to have the AG create a position of Special Mediator or Deputy Arbitrating AG and appoint someone who can settle civil grievances.
Click to expand...
The easiest way to do that is to just have the Court establish a court rule as to the disposal of 'Civil' cases.
 
I lol'd.

Congratulations to grosse. A masterful defence, and not a tactic that would have occurred to me in a million years.
 
The great North Pacific justice strikes again. Lost for words.
 
*returns from the dead to read thread*

Quite some interesting revelations on how you all viewed me during my time in this region ... also a disappointing result in general. Oh well, can't say I particularly care anymore now I've given up gameplay.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
The great North Pacific justice strikes again. Lost for words.
Click to expand...
Agreed, except no lost for words. This is standard protocol.


One thing that young kids should take note of here. These are two admins who see this issue (amongst others) differently. The administration of this board didn't suffer and there was really little to no impact on the governmental workings (save these trials). I think that is a testament to the people who are admins of these boards.

I must say, most of the admins of TNP recall Twoslit and the part he played in moving us from "old blue" to these forums. I'm glad to be part of an admin team that is capable of separating the game from the adminning these board.
 
Kingborough:
*returns from the dead to read thread*

Quite some interesting revelations on how you all viewed me during my time in this region ... also a disappointing result in general. Oh well, can't say I particularly care anymore now I've given up gameplay.
Click to expand...
...where were you mentioned?
 
flemingovia:
I lol'd.

Congratulations to grosse. A masterful defence, and not a tactic that would have occurred to me in a million years.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't give the defense any credit for this outcome, and if you'll notice, I didn't.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
flemingovia:
I lol'd.

Congratulations to grosse. A masterful defence, and not a tactic that would have occurred to me in a million years.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't give the defense any credit for this outcome, and if you'll notice, I didn't.
Click to expand...
And that was Grosse's genius. He played the system brilliantly. By denying the constitutional validity of the proceedings he put the court itself on trial, rather than him.
 
A brilliant technical decision. I like it on some many levels.

It complies completely with the concepts and principles of Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law especially on the point of law that requires actual damage had to be incurred as a result of defamatory statements.

The 'Schauz wins on a delightfully technical aspect involving a flaw in the indictment as per exactly what he was being charged with.

I would have handed down the exact same decision for the exact same reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top