I plead not guilt and I countersue

[dr. carbon]

I was banned the other day for calling a /vote_changeMap during a game. I was in the game, and the vote was of something ridiculous that would probably never be passed, and I did it because I was bored as hell on mayhem. Multiple games later, I was banned by SSD.


A Quick Explanation Behind My Appeal:

Social Contract dictates that any governing body forms a contract with the governed people. And regardless of the body itself, it is the people’s duty to uphold the law of the governing body, and in return, the governing body’s law protects the people. In the same way, ladder administration forms the governing body and pilots like you and me form the governed people.

Fair enough. However there is one underlying condition for the contract to work: at any point in the contract, if the governing body breaks its own law and encroaches on the people’s rights, the social contract fails and every action previously deemed morally impermissible is now morally permissible.


A few games before the incident, ladder was almost full with people. As a result, be it out of pure bad luck, I was double-specced. However, I got into the game following the double-spec, but the match was on /tbd_core, and as all of you know, it promised a long and tedious match. Around 10 minutes into the game (I think I got around 25 kills by that point), SSD decides to use his administrative powers to force a /custom stop_tournament. I was specced the new game. I found this to my great dislike, as I had waited two long games to play, and now the reward for all that waiting was brutally snatched away from me.

Coincidentally, SSD was the very person who banned me for calling a mere /vote changeMap. This completely changes the whole scenario. First, SSD is representative of the governing body and I, the people. In the above episode, SSD’s changeMap broke his own governmental policy, breaking the condition and breaking the contract. Therefore, every action pulling the same type of changeMap crap is morally and legally permissible. I just got banned for something completely legally permissible.

Now, you may feel that I completely twisted the situation out of context, but here is why I should not receive punishment in the first place or at least receive a lesser punishment.

Facts to consider:

1. SSD broke ladder policy
2. I voted a map that would never pass for ‘lolz,’ he forced his vote to pass
3. I believed since even an admin did it, that it was okay to pull that kind of ****
4. #3 is further amplified by the fact that mine was of noticeable less magnitude since my vote was obviously a joke and would never pass.
5. I was banned many hours after the actual transgression indicating that SSD possibly banned me out of spite (this may have little weight in your rulings, but nevertheless could be a possible indicator that spite was at the root of this hypocrisy)

There are two solutions:

1) Since the contract is broken, my action is deemed permissible. Ban is lifted or reduced.
2) When the government infringes on the rights of the governed, the governmental body is deemed tyrannical. SSD, an admin, is supposed to be bastion of fairness and judgment. His inability to handle his great power that he was given should result in him being stripped of his administrative powers and for him to receive some sort of ban too.

Please also simply consider the fact that my action was meant to be a complete joke. Neither was it intended to harm anyone nor did it harm anyone – it was simply an action out of pure restlessness and boredom on a crappy game of /tbd_mayhem. People do this all the time -- look at Acegunner's post. Same thing.

Disclaimer: I apologize for any possible factual inaccuracies. If an inaccuracy mitigates my actual argument, then I apologize and retract my appeal.

I beg you to reconsider.

[Radium]

they should keep the ban just because you made your appeal like this

[undertheinfluence]

SSD calls random change maps all the time and says "oops" as if you could possibly do that on accident.

[yankinlk]

Appeal will fail since its on the wrong thread

[sunshineduck]

apology accepted

[Jrathje]

I like your style, Carbon. I say that you be immediately unbanned and that SSD lose his admin power.

[elxir]

citation needed

[andy]

SSD should stop banning people he hates for breaking ladder rules.

[Tekn0]

I stopped reading here:

and I did it because I was bored as hell on mayhem

[Kuja900]

You filled your post with so much garbage I cant even tell what your problem is. nohelpforu

[Ribilla]

Tu Quoque

Whether you think SSD is a bad admin or not doesn't get round the fact that you broke a ladder rule.

[Princess Squirtle]

Law fallacy. Acceptance of the rules is not a social contract, it is a covenant, therefore ssd breaches no social contract thus your basis on this appeal is erroneous.

NB: It is not a synallagmatic contract either as providing access to a server is a service, not an obligation.

[Demuyt]

Originally Posted by Princess Squirtle

Law fallacy. Acceptance of the rules is not a social contract, it is a covenant, therefore ssd breaches no social contract thus your basis on this appeal is erroneous.

NB: It is not a synallagmatic contract either as providing access to a server is a service, not an obligation.

Ouch, ouch.

[Ingbo]

i like ur style squirtsy!

[ragnorak727]

squirtle got game

[Duck Duck Pwn]

Yeah, this most certainly isn't a social contract, nor do you establish any argument for why the server is a social contract. You also fail to equivocate your actions with SSD's.

In addition, your application of social contract implies that all actions which are illegal are justified if the governing body does anything that is perceived as illegal. This sets a terrible precedent, as I could theoretically leave a game just because an Admin may or may not have contributed to Acegunner's internet suddenly dropping near the beginning of a ladder game.

Even in the absence of a perfectly moral/legal government, this does not justify potentially immoral/illegal actions. We do not have a perfectly moral/legal government, so your application of the social contract would imply that breaking all laws in society is fair and valid.

All in all, you are wrong.

[Kuja900]

Princess went all lawyer girl on him

[[Y]]

Originally Posted by dr. carbon

Around 10 minutes into the game (I think I got around 25 kills by that point), SSD decides to use his administrative powers to force a /custom stop_tournament.

evidence/context?

also, what's this?

lol, i think we should just repeal the bam

[banana]

Originally Posted by (5) THE MARVEL

lol, i think we should just repeal the bam

Well that argument convinced me.

[Smushface]

Originally Posted by dr. carbon

A few games before the incident, ladder was almost full with people. As a result, be it out of pure bad luck, I was double-specced. However, I got into the game following the double-spec, but the match was on /tbd_core, and as all of you know, it promised a long and tedious match. Around 10 minutes into the game (I think I got around 25 kills by that point), SSD decides to use his administrative powers to force a /custom stop_tournament. I was specced the new game. I found this to my great dislike, as I had waited two long games to play, and now the reward for all that waiting was brutally snatched away from me.

Disclaimer: I apologize for any possible factual inaccuracies. If an inaccuracy mitigates my actual argument, then I apologize and retract my appeal.

I beg you to reconsider.

Originally Posted by [Y]

Case closed.

Also, don't type out abortions for ban appeals. Also, don't lie during your ban appeal because you might just find it extended.

[leggomyeggo]

Originally Posted by (5) THE MARVEL

lol, i think we should just repeal the bam

Thanks for playing guys, but marvel has just put this case away. What has been said has been taken into account, but the bam will be repealed after this thoroughly convincing argument.

Case closed.

[Jesus]

Originally Posted by (5) THE MARVEL

lol, i think we should just repeal the bam

Never have I seen a better reason to unban someone from a server then this.

[sunshineduck]

Originally Posted by [Y]

evidence/context?

this is actually correct, i did indeed custom stop a game at exactly 1:45 PM EST on sunday in order to restart the server so we could test to see whether the new APL config would work since the servers were down. i was in the restroom during the lobby in between the previous game and core, but aki had mentioned that we were restarting the servers. upon my return, i said that i was restarting the servers if nobody hit the base by 1:45, and when nobody did i restarted them. i don't think he technically lied during any part of his post, he's just very (very) stupid.

[sunshineduck]

oh wait he did lie, he voted changemap on space and not mayhem. unless he did it twice i guess.

[acegunner]

Carbon calm down this isn't a debate tournament. Speaking like ur a lawyer when ur like 15 years old isn't going to help you.

P.S I was on your team and even though it was a "joke" its against the rules and your ban shouldn't be appealed.

[dr. carbon]

My point is that my action was a complete joke, I didn't mean for it to do any harm nor did it do any harm. I am asking to reconsider based on the _nature_ of the offense.

This is further amplified by the fact that even admins pull all sorts of crap of the same _nature_. Consider this both an appeal and a charge. If i get banned, so should SSD. I find it 1) unfair that I be banned out of hate when almost everyone else isn't (I agree -- that doesn't justify an appeal) but 2) I believed it morally correct in the fact that it would never pass and was obviously for humorous purposes.

@squirtle and every other disbeliever
A covenant is a FORM OF CONTRACT. My point was not a complete classification of the scenario as a "Social Contract" but to justify my moral philosophy behind my action under Contractarianism, which is at play here. If the administrative body itself violates its own policy, the policy itself loses all weight. However ridiculous that seems, it is completely true.

And it is a well known belief that almost all relationships of the 'head-follower' kinds TEND towards that of social contract. That is based off human nature and fundamental friend-enemy distinctions. So off probability alone, the relationship I have with the admins is PROBABILISTICALLY that of a social contract.

You can't legally delegitimize my point since CONTRACTARIANISM IS HOW ANY FORM OF LEGALITY FUNCTIONS. The very fact that this is a legal issue implies a contractual relationship. I am simply trying to justify the morality in my action and how I did not violate any contract if the administrative body ALREADY deemed the contract void.

@SSD -- I apologize if I was wrong in my example. But, I do also cite the instance of Acegunner's previous appeal; however, I do make the assumption that it's also true. And depending on Aki to inform everyone that the server will restart AND making the assumption that EVERYONE will take Aki seriously is 'very, very stupid,' especially for any responsible admin. And you mentioning that DURING THE GAME doesn't justify doing it.

But im guessing you won't let this instance go, so you can completely drop it and refer to the alternate instance I provided.

@Rib
You stated that my appeal was fallacious in the fact that it was an appeal to hypocrisy. My appeal isn't centered around the fact that SSD was the one that banned me while he committed the same crime but rather the contractual inability to hold me accountable.

Second, you can turn hypocrisy to my side. My crime was not the inherent breaking of the rule but rather the logical fallacy that caused it. Because of the repeated abuse by admins itself, my mind had fallaciously resorted to an appeal to hypocrisy as a justification for my action. I admit, my action was stupid in and of itself, but that doesn't change the facts. I simply ask to be excused for this APPEAL TO HYPOCRISY as it lacked criminal intent, and the violation lacks weight in and of itself.

I condense:
I ask you to reconsider my ban because 1) I am contractually not or less obligated to the policy and 2) I simply ask you to reconsider because my offense was of incredibly little weight, had humorous and harmless intentions, and was justified by repeated abuse of the policy itself.

Please, although I believe what I did was still a violation (however I had no contractual obligation as proved above), I simply ask that you let this one instance go for the reasons above.

[dr. carbon]

As a side note: I extend my disclaimer as a sort of insurance for any future developments that may be to my disadvantage.

[elxir]

you definitely get made fun of in school

[Radium]

pleading not guilt

[dr. carbon]

Im a status symbol bro

[sunshineduck]

[dr. carbon]

i'd respond but idk how to post gifs fuuuuu

[Clapon]

Originally Posted by Radium

pleading not guilt

yeah i didnt even read any of his posts after i saw this and the format he decided to use

[dr. carbon]

Can I actually have some conclusive and productive judgement on this issue?

Thanks.

[undertheinfluence]

[Princess Squirtle]

@squirtle and every other disbeliever
A covenant is a FORM OF CONTRACT. My point was not a complete classification of the scenario as a "Social Contract" but to justify my moral philosophy behind my action under Contractarianism, which is at play here. If the administrative body itself violates its own policy, the policy itself loses all weight. However ridiculous that seems, it is completely true.

And it is a well known belief that almost all relationships of the 'head-follower' kinds TEND towards that of social contract. That is based off human nature and fundamental friend-enemy distinctions. So off probability alone, the relationship I have with the admins is PROBABILISTICALLY that of a social contract.

You can't legally delegitimize my point since CONTRACTARIANISM IS HOW ANY FORM OF LEGALITY FUNCTIONS. The very fact that this is a legal issue implies a contractual relationship. I am simply trying to justify the morality in my action and how I did not violate any contract if the administrative body ALREADY deemed the contract void.

Good, you took my bait. I used a shortcut to dismiss what you said, since you made a basic legal syllogism (eg: this is a social contract, this is what happenned, hence the contract is breached and my action are justified).
The point is, this is not a social contract, this is a covenant that you accept on a service provided to you. If SSD, that actually had a justified reason for his vote, made something wrong, this is poor quality service (take the hint, this time!), not illegitimacy nor breach of contract (a covenant is a unilateral contract. You're pretty much the only one who can break it). A social contract is not a form of contract nor is it a legal concept per se, it is a philosophical concept. You used it as a legal concept, which you really can't. That aside, I dismissed your appeal on a technicality: your basis is wrong, no need to judge the content. Also, there is no probability (really, that?) in interactions which in this case is a contractual interaction: you are under the regime of a covenant. Period. However, let me still explain further on why this is not in any way near as close as a social contract as you think it is.

The social contract happens between a governement and the individuals because they act together in a societal way. Humans have a state of nature (the most important concept in this theory, btw, that you totally forgot), more or less immoral ("the man is a wolf to the other man"), that this interaction rejects because humans understand the need of boundaries, legitimating the existence of the governement therefore its powers (such as edicting rules). In this case and within the interaction that exists between us, you're already passed beyond that state of nature within our society that your governement created rules for such as... the covenant. Moreover, the ladmin system is not a body close to a government or its administration because the ladmin does not have "kingly" powers such as minting coins and enforcing rules with legitimate violence nor does it have delegated "kingly" powers. The closest thing to what ladder is, is of a private society providing a service with a charter, in an almost similar way as a private bus company and its charter are (eg: the ladder rules are of the same nature as the charter of appropriate conduct in a bus, with the exception that in our case, you also accept sanctions; not to be confused with the other contract existing when you buy a ticket). The key words here are "private" and "service", in other words: this is a private service run by individuals for users. So no, contractarianism is not at play here because the social contract is a specific and limited philosophical concept that you simply can't use that way. Your analogy is wrong, because ladder doesn't require legitimacy to exist therefore doesn't require it for its powers. It can act freely, right or wrong, under the limit of the law; justified bans are really just bonuses. So the basis of this interaction and its morality is solely thus of a legal and unilateral contract, and the one for your annoyance could be thus of a poor quality service (I said it twice now, I hope you can take the hint!).
On the other hand, you're morally and legally obliged to follow the rules of privates matters and services that your governement edicted. If anyone here is breaching a social contract, it's you, for you have immorally acted in disregard of what your legitimate governement enacted.

[Ribilla]

[Kuja900]

Originally Posted by Princess Squirtle

Good, you took my bait. I used a shortcut to dismiss what you said, since you made a basic legal syllogism (eg: this is a social contract, this is what happenned, hence the contract is breached and my action are justified).
The point is, this is not a social contract, this is a covenant that you accept on a service provided to you. If SSD, that actually had a justified reason for his vote, made something wrong, this is poor quality service (take the hint, this time!), not illegitimacy nor breach of contract (a covenant is a unilateral contract. You're pretty much the only one who can break it). A social contract is not a form of contract nor is it a legal concept per se, it is a philosophical concept. You used it as a legal concept, which you really can't. That aside, I dismissed your appeal on a technicality: your basis is wrong, no need to judge the content. Also, there is no probability (really, that?) in interactions which in this case is a contractual interaction: you are under the regime of a covenant. Period. However, let me still explain further on why this is not in any way near as close as a social contract as you think it is.

The social contract happens between a governement and the individuals because they act together in a societal way. Humans have a state of nature (the most important concept in this theory, btw, that you totally forgot), more or less immoral ("the man is a wolf to the other man"), that this interaction rejects because humans understand the need of boundaries, legitimating the existence of the governement therefore its powers (such as edicting rules). In this case and within the interaction that exists between us, you're already passed beyond that state of nature within our society that your governement created rules for such as... the covenant. Moreover, the ladmin system is not a body close to a government or its administration because the ladmin does not have "kingly" powers such as minting coins and enforcing rules with legitimate violence nor does it have delegated "kingly" powers. The closest thing to what ladder is, is of a private society providing a service with a charter, in an almost similar way as a private bus company and its charter are (eg: the ladder rules are of the same nature as the charter of appropriate conduct in a bus, with the exception that in our case, you also accept sanctions; not to be confused with the other contract existing when you buy a ticket). The key words here are "private" and "service", in other words: this is a private service run by individuals for users. So no, contractarianism is not at play here because the social contract is a specific and limited philosophical concept that you simply can't use that way. Your analogy is wrong, because ladder doesn't require legitimacy to exist therefore doesn't require it for its powers. It can act freely, right or wrong, under the limit of the law; justified bans are really just bonuses. So the basis of this interaction and its morality is solely thus of a legal and unilateral contract, and the one for your annoyance could be thus of a poor quality service (I said it twice now, I hope you can take the hint!).
On the other hand, you're morally and legally obliged to follow the rules of privates matters and services that your governement edicted. If anyone here is breaching a social contract, it's you, for you have immorally acted in disregard of what your legitimate governement enacted.

Keep in mind you need to out argue her to get unbanned

[Demuyt]

You’ve got to be kidding me. Let me put it this way. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. In terms of can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? Vis-a-vis, my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, as it were, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like, per se. It’s just common sense, so to speak.

Q.E.D.




©FU, 2011.