Jump to content

Server Rules: Questions and Answers


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Abortion is something our senate rules on ICly atm and did also pass a bill almost a month ago, where there was no fuss about this. In terms of the covid decision and the war, it affects people a lot on a large global scale compared to this. I'm not saying this isn't negative or doesn't have large complications, I'm just stating the original reason for the blanket ban on covid and the war. Like I did say though, if it becomes an issue within the community that bothers a lot of people (the voting didn't seem to reflect that too much), then it's a discussion we can have again. But as it stands I don't wanna make that ruling.

Do you not think removing ~160 million peoples bodily autonomy is not "large scale"?

Link to comment
Just now, Zach.. said:

Do you not think removing ~160 million peoples bodily autonomy is not "large scale"?

I don't think this should be about my opinion or anything like that. You are comparing it to a global-scale pandemic that killed a lot of people, as well as a war. These things should not and can not be compared. As said, if it's a large issue that a majority of the server feels negatively affects their experience in playing here, it'll likely be addressed. As it currently stands that was not the case based on the topic created, and that was up for a good while.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Shanks said:

I don't think this should be about my opinion or anything like that. You are comparing it to a global-scale pandemic that killed a lot of people, as well as a war. These things should not and can not be compared. As said, if it's a large issue that a majority of the server feels negatively affects their experience in playing here, it'll likely be addressed. As it currently stands that was not the case based on the topic created, and that was up for a good while.

I will disagree, but I appreciate you discussing with me and giving me your side.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Shanks said:

I don't think this should be about my opinion or anything like that.

Hundreds of million of people are losing control of their body. I refuse to believe you are just that small minded that you don't understand. No matter your opinion, your political stance, it is factual information that overturning Roe vs Wade has removed the freedom for people to have abortions. If you want to bring up the war? Your phrasing implies that more than just soliders are being killed. What can happen with Roe v Wade being unturned? More backstreet abortions, more women dying, more babies being left for dead, more pain and suffering. Any competant person with an understanding of how the world works should realise that this goes beyond just "women not having babies" and it has no ground IG. George Floyd's protests were banned, how is this any different?

 

11 minutes ago, Shanks said:

if it's a large issue that a majority of the server

I also refuse to believe that you thought about your words before saying this. The main victims of this are the women, and they are already in the minority. The majority of the server are male teenagers, young adults who don't understand and don't feel the issues that the ruling has caused. If you think the majority of this server gives a fuck about anything other than themselves, you are mistaken.

Edited by shotgun_sam
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, shotgun_sam said:

Hundreds of million of people are losing control of their body. I refuse to believe you are just that small minded that you don't understand. No matter your opinion, your political stance, it is factual information that overturning Roe vs Wade has removed the freedom for people to have abortions. If you want to bring up the war? Your phrasing implies that more than just soliders are being killed. What can happen with Roe v Wade being unturned? More backstreet abortions, more women dying, more babies being left for dead, more pain and suffering. Any competant person with an understanding of how the world works should realise that this goes beyond just "women not having babies" and it has no ground IG. George Floyd's protests were banned, how is this any different?

 

I also refuse to believe that you thought about your words before saying this. The main victims of this are the women, and they are already in the minority. The majority of the server are male teenagers, young adults who don't understand and don't feel the issues that the ruling has caused. If you think the majority of this server gives a fuck about anything other than themselves, you are mistaken.

 

This isn't exactly what is happening. Roe v Wade was passed to let states say if abortion is legal or not. Every single state could vote that the woman has rights to their body - we do not know.

 

Management's ruling was made because it's already been in play in the server and almost every single one of us did not notice. A quick chatlog check and the word 'abortion' was used less than 500 times. Some of it picking up 'abort' as in abort the mission as well as 'aborted' - so even less than 500 times. 

 

This will not affect the server whatsoever - the people who voted for it being able to be mentioned IC are not saying it's a small issue - it is a huge issue IRL. They are voting that they should be able to mention it IC as per tons of reasons which you can read in the thread about it. 

 

If it DOES affect the server, if toxicity and insensitive remarks DO start happening - I am sure this will be brought up again and it can be dealt with. 

 

Right now, no 'freedom' has been removed. The war was not allowed to be discussed IC because just check out the discord channel amongst it. There was probably 100+ bans because some people just can't help themselves. I believe the discord chat was made so people could talk about it at least there and we could monitor it heavily. 

 

You don't need to tell Shanks what happens with Roe v Wade - he didn't go to the supreme court and rule it himself, it's not his issue, it's not his thing. He had nothing to do with it. 

 

George Floyd's was banned because there is constant talk about killing black people, racist remarks, etc OOC and IC. Abortions are hardly talked about nor really discussed. Plus again, the supreme court ruled that states had the decision, not that they are abolishing abortions altogether. 

 

If you want to discuss this more - please privately DM Shanks or me and we can discuss it, this thread isn't the place unfortunately.

Edited by Wuhtah
  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Applaud 1
Link to comment

I'm more interested in the Supreme Court's ruling on Miranda rights than anything abortion related as I feel like that'll be more relevant on the server. Any plans on changing how that works on the server? 

 

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.

The court's ruling will cut back on an individual's protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial.
The court clarified that while the Miranda warning protects a constitutional right, the warning itself is not a right that would trigger the ability to bring a civil lawsuit.
"Today's ruling doesn't get rid of the Miranda right," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But it does make it far harder to enforce. Under this ruling, the only remedy for a violation of Miranda is to suppress statements obtained from a suspect who's not properly advised of his right to remain silent. But if the case never goes to trial, or if the government never seeks to use the statement, or if the statement is admitted notwithstanding the Miranda violation, there's no remedy at all for the government's misconduct."
Edited by jeffersonairplane
Link to comment
4 hours ago, jeffersonairplane said:

I'm more interested in the Supreme Court's ruling on Miranda rights than anything abortion related as I feel like that'll be more relevant on the server. Any plans on changing how that works on the server? 

 

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.

The court's ruling will cut back on an individual's protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial.
The court clarified that while the Miranda warning protects a constitutional right, the warning itself is not a right that would trigger the ability to bring a civil lawsuit.
"Today's ruling doesn't get rid of the Miranda right," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But it does make it far harder to enforce. Under this ruling, the only remedy for a violation of Miranda is to suppress statements obtained from a suspect who's not properly advised of his right to remain silent. But if the case never goes to trial, or if the government never seeks to use the statement, or if the statement is admitted notwithstanding the Miranda violation, there's no remedy at all for the government's misconduct."

 

See Shanks ruling;

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

If you are under fire, you may pull out your gun and shoot while in vehicle/bike.

 

But, hypothetically speaking, you decide not to fire back while under fire. You decide to do that 5 seconds after they stopped shooting. Can you still open fire without /me considering you was a target?

 

OR, you fired back and they stopped shooting. Can you still open fire at them anyway without /me?

Thanks.

Edited by thekillergreece
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...