Kisada. (large ..)

Sabia said:
I just find it comical that buddy-nuts comes in here and tries to make a stink about a situation that should of been left between friends (or in this case former) feeling he's somehow wronged by someone confronting him for violating someones trust. Plus I'm bored at work and this is kinda like reality TV for geeks.
Click to expand...

well, wouldn't this whole thread then be counted as self-flaming and thus be deemed for locking?
i read this thread and nodded off.
:sleeping:
 
This thread actually went way off topic. The original topic seems to be Necrosis' problem with how Kisada was acting to him in their conversation and, while it might be from the BST issue, should have never involved the issue of Necrosis using Sote's BST or mules.
 
Elemmire said:
that's where the breach of contract is. While it might not be between the driver and the attendant it is between the attendant and the employer. The Driver's car being used for joyride would in turn breach the agreement the employer has most likely given to the driver. Again, all a breach of contract. Where as, in Necrosis' case, his actions of using Sote's character for crafting and using his other jobs was not a breach of their contract as Necrosis was only given one stipulation when they made the agreement. That stipulation was that he level the NIN job to 37. Having not done that is where the breach of contract is.
Click to expand...

You forget property ownership laws. I'm not even talking about this stupid jiffy lube example anymore, I don't know why you don't understand. The employer never says "don't drive off with the customer's property" because there is already a law against that. Hellooooo? Seriously. Someone gives you something to perform a task with and the stipulation is you do that and what is necessary to perform that and NOTHING ELSE.

So to simplify - his character is his. He paid necrosis to lvl nin. This allows necrosis to lvl nin for the sum of 10mil. Necrosis did not perform this task to expectation and therefore is deserving of 0gil. Necrosis also used and abused the account for personal gain when he was not given permission to do so. This is destruction of property. If I'm going away for the weekend and I need someone to look after my cat so I give you 20 bucks and my keys and say 'feed him twice a day thanks', do you do anything with my house? Fuck no. You feed my cat. If you want a bonus you clean up the cat puke on the carpet. In this example, if you fed my cat once a day I would not pay you. Also, if you had a house party, drank my beer, had sex in my bed, and didn't flush my toilet, I'd cave your face in. You're not allowed to do that, it's not your house, the only reason you're in it is to feed my cat, and you didn't even do that.
 
Elemmire said:
This thread actually went way off topic. The original topic seems to be Necrosis' problem with how Kisada was acting to him in their conversation and, while it might be from the BST issue, should have never involved the issue of Necrosis using Sote's BST or mules.
Click to expand...

And the response to the original topic is 'we don't care because you're a scumbag, and here's why'. We're not talking about american idol or anything, we're still on topic.
 
Elemmire said:
This thread actually went way off topic. The original topic seems to be Necrosis' problem with how Kisada was acting to him in their conversation and, while it might be from the BST issue, should have never involved the issue of Necrosis using Sote's BST or mules.
Click to expand...

Actually it's stayed pretty much on topic. Necrosis brings up the fact that he doesn't appreciate Kisada giving him shit, Kisada comes in and explains why he gave Necrosis shit, Necrosis says pretty much 'well it wasn't that bad,' Sote comes in and confirms Kisada's post that yeah it was, you come in and try to defend Necrosis with some half brained legal argument (when we're dealing with a video game for shits sake), and that's pretty much where it is now. It's still a conversation about whether or not Kisada was justified in confronting Necrosis.
 
Raivyn said:
You forget property ownership laws. I'm not even talking about this stupid jiffy lube example anymore, I don't know why you don't understand. The employer never says "don't drive off with the customer's property" because there is already a law against that. Hellooooo? Seriously. Someone gives you something to perform a task with and the stipulation is you do that and what is necessary to perform that and NOTHING ELSE.
Click to expand...

another breach of contract. Contract that the company signed to the US when they conduct business with US citizens. Laws of the US that one has to agree to or they don't work here, live here, or do any business with people here(legally). Just as we agree to the laws and gave our consent to the US laws when we signed various forms (for anyone that signs a federal aid contract for college, or gets a US passport, etc). Still breaches of contract that were meant to protect the person. Ownership laws do come into play and that's why the person can't keep the car if their friend asked them to get it washed. But, since the friend gave the keys over to the person by their own free choice, they gave their consent to that person to use the car.
 
Elemmire said:
another breach of contract. Contract that the company signed to the US when they conduct business with US citizens. Laws of the US that one has to agree to or they don't work here, live here, or do any business with people here(legally). Just as we agree to the laws and gave our consent to the US laws when we signed various forms (for anyone that signs a federal aid contract for college, or gets a US passport, etc). Still breaches of contract that were meant to protect the person. Ownership laws do come into play and that's why the person can't keep the car if their friend asked them to get it washed. But, since the friend gave the keys over to the person by their own free choice, they gave their consent to that person to use the car.
Click to expand...

In that case, can I borrow your account?
 
Elemmire said:
Anyways, I think you are all missing my point. My point was to show that he did not break the agreement by using his character for other methods. And I was also trying to point out that a moral action might not mean a breach of contract. People keep insisting that morals be made into laws (i.e. prostitution being illegal because it's morally wrong even though there really is no victim) and this is wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's where you're incorrect. Nobody's trying to insist that Necrosis broke any "law," and to use a term like "breach of contract" when talking about a personal, private agreement within the boundaries of a game suggests a legal viewpoint that just does not apply to this situation. Once again, this isn't a state court, and you aren't Necrosis' attorney. Necrosis isn't facing jail time, or a forced fine, and clinging to the exact wording of the original agreement isn't going to get anyone "off the hook," here. This is the court of public opinion, the argument is primarily about the morality of his actions, and the only damage will be to reputations. On these grounds, where deals are enforced only by honor and punished only by the chastising of the community, the spirit of their agreement means a whole lot more than the bloody letter of it.

The only thing that is being argued about, here, is whether or not he did something crappy. I don't think there's any question about that; we all know he did. You're focusing, instead, on an obscure and technical distraction that would be more appropriate in a government court.

Address the issue of whether or not what Necrosis did was ethically wrong ... not whether or not anybody can force him to rectify it. We all know the answer to the second question is that we can't, so arguing about that until you're blue in the face is pointless. You're basically stressing the very technical point of whether not Necrosis broke the literal wording of the agreement (which he really did, for not levelling up Ninja if nothing else), to avoid addressing the real issue.

Talk about whether or not Necrosis did something WRONG. There'd be GMs involved if we felt there was anything to be done in an official capacity. This is QCDN's flameboard, however, and we're dealing only with the Court of Communal Ethics. THOSE are the grounds we view the situation from. Did Necrosis do something "wrong"? I know I'm repeating myself, but I've yet to really see you answer that question, and it's THE question you should be answering. I can't see how you could honestly say that he didn't. If that's the case, you've got to stop defending him.
 
Elemmire said:
This thread actually went way off topic. The original topic seems to be Necrosis' problem with how Kisada was acting to him in their conversation and, while it might be from the BST issue, should have never involved the issue of Necrosis using Sote's BST or mules.
Click to expand...

The reason Kisada went off at him was BECAUSE he was using Sote's BST and his mules.

Please try to keep up.
 
Sabia said:
Actually it's stayed pretty much on topic. Necrosis brings up the fact that he doesn't appreciate Kisada giving him shit, Kisada comes in and explains why he gave Necrosis shit, Necrosis says pretty much 'well it wasn't that bad,' Sote comes in and confirms Kisada's post that yeah it was, you come in and try to defend Necrosis with some half brained legal argument (when we're dealing with a video game for shits sake), and that's pretty much where it is now. It's still a conversation about whether or not Kisada was justified in confronting Necrosis.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I could see dealings with an MMO as legal cases. Because, in the arguement of what is someone's property, the person put a lot of time and effort into their character and worked hard on it. If you ever study Locke (and this is where most of our world today's laws and beliefs come from with Locke and Smith and other liberals of the 1700-1800s arguements) and learn what is defined as someone's property (which is how all democratic governments treat property for the most part, to my knowledge anyways) you will see that Locke would say that because the person put work into their character and time and energy it is, in a sense, their property. Unfortunately, right now, there are no laws stating virtual items (even though they might be items you worked hard for).

But, with this case, there was still no breach with the deal Necrosis and Sote made until Necrosis didn't live up with his end of leveling Sote's NIN to 37.
 
Elemmire said:
Frankly, I could see dealings with an MMO as legal cases. Because, in the arguement of what is someone's property, the person put a lot of time and effort into their character and worked hard on it. If you ever study Locke (and this is where most of our world today's laws and beliefs come from with Locke and Smith and other liberals of the 1700-1800s arguements) and learn what is defined as someone's property (which is how all democratic governments treat property for the most part, to my knowledge anyways) you will see that Locke would say that because the person put work into their character and time and energy it is, in a sense, their property. Unfortunately, right now, there are no laws stating virtual items (even though they might be items you worked hard for).

But, with this case, there was still no breach with the deal Necrosis and Sote made until Necrosis didn't live up with his end of leveling Sote's NIN to 37.
Click to expand...

You fail at this argument because it was never an argument about whether or not Kisada was LEGALLY justified in confronting Necrosis in the matter he did.
 
Raivyn said:
In that case, can I borrow your account?
Click to expand...

no, and if I did ever let you borrow my account I would put stipulations on it. I'm not gonna just so blindly agree to something and not think things through. Especially with people I don't know in real life.
 
Sabia said:
You fail at this argument because it was never an argument about whether or not Kisada was LEGALLY justified in confronting Necrosis in the matter he did.
Click to expand...

I can see the world coming to a close already. Soon I won't be able to call anyone so much as 'inefficient' without first completing a name-calling license application.
 
Sabia said:
You fail at this argument because it was never an argument about whether or not Kisada was LEGALLY justified in confronting Necrosis in the matter he did.
Click to expand...

I never said he Kisada was legally justified in confronting Necrosis. I was just pointing out to so many that claimed Necrosis broke the agreement by using Sote's mules and BST that he wasn't actually breaking their agreement at all. Is it really that hard to grasp?
 
Elemmire said:
no, and if I did ever let you borrow my account I would put stipulations on it. I'm not gonna just so blindly agree to something and not think things through. Especially with people I don't know in real life.
Click to expand...

There aren't enough words in the english language to limit what someone could do to your account. That is why there are exclusion agreements, but whatever. You have taken this to a level that it does not belong.
 
Sabia said:
You fail at this argument because it was never an argument about whether or not Kisada was LEGALLY justified in confronting Necrosis in the matter he did.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was trying to say.

The only person that was trying to frame this whole thing as if it was an argument about the bloody legality of Necrosis' actions is ELEMMIRE.

Everyone else is far more concerned with the fact that it was just a straight-up nasty thing to do.

You're really arguing with an imaginary opponent here, El, over something that was never said.
 
Elemmire said:
I never said he Kisada was legally justified in confronting Necrosis. I was just pointing out to so many that claimed Necrosis broke the agreement by using Sote's mules and BST that he wasn't actually breaking their agreement at all. Is it really that hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed that ele, everyone's just saying he's an asshole for doing what he did...why's this so hard for you to get your head around?
 
Elemmire said:
I never said he Kisada was legally justified in confronting Necrosis. I was just pointing out to so many that claimed Necrosis broke the agreement by using Sote's mules and BST that he wasn't actually breaking their agreement at all. Is it really that hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

It's not hard to grasp, it's just wrong. By the same logic that you say he didn't say that he couldn't, he didn't say that he could either. Therefore your whole argument is entirely void in the face of the fact that it isn't his character and he cannot decide what is right and wrong, only Sote can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top