Jobs

[Piotr]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Piotr. This keeps happening on here.

You need to work on your definition of the word lie. There is a fine line between a lie and a falsehood but there IS a difference.  A lie is an intentional deception. A falsehood is simply a statement which is not true.

Your belief that something is not true is just as valid as somebody else believing it is true. The punishment should be based on intent. Was the individual expressing an opinion they truly believe? Or were they intentionally proliferating misinformation?

To punish someone for expressing their opinion is morally wrong and I must strongly condemn this action on principle alone.

The purpose of the law is to solve conflicts between two or more live specimens of Homo Sapiens. If there's no conflict, the law is irrelevant and it doesn't apply.

Do not do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them by telling them lies, do not claim false statements to be true. Do not mislead people into believing falsehoods are truths. Simple enough.

1 + 1 = 2 is true, 1 + 1 = 3 is a not true. You may be of an opinion that it is true, so what. You may not understand what you're saying, you may say it in good intentions. So what, you still spread or repeat a lie, regardless of whether you created it or not. We've been through this, I was hoping I got my point across.

When using the law, you first check whether there is a victim who had something done to them, etc. This obviously applies here: I asked politely, many times, not to spread lies on my forum, specifically lies about the origin of financial crisis of 2007. My request was consistently ignored by the guy and that makes him guilty of breaking iMtG law.

The next step is to deal logical punishment. Capital punishment is not appropriate for spreading lies on some obscure internet forum, 7 days ban from the forum is logical enough. Get over it, punishment was dealt and the guy is not guilty any more. If he decides to come back, he needs to play by the house rules. He is free to start his own blog or forum and spread any lies he wants there.

[Piotr]

Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb

No, I saw a ruling from a monarch that many people disagreed with.

[Piotr]

Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb

No, I saw a ruling from a monarch that many people disagreed with.

And why did they disagree? Was the ruling not in line with the law? Every ruling is an outcome of a conflict and thus has at least one party disagreeing with it, as the ruling is not in their interest. What did you expect, everyone lives happily ever after?

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb

No, I saw a ruling from a monarch that many people disagreed with.

And why did they disagree? Was the ruling not in line with the law? Every ruling is an outcome of a conflict and thus has at least one party disagreeing with it, as the ruling is not in their interest. What did you expect, everyone lives happily ever after?

I expected everyone to be able to express their opinions without the fear of being punished for their beliefs by someone who doesn't agree.

[Double-O-Scotch]

BAM!!!

[Piotr]

I expected everyone to be able to express their opinions without the fear of being punished for their beliefs by someone who doesn't agree.

You expected wrong, 'opinion' is not a valid defense for people who spread lies.

Please note how you still need to prove a statement to be false for it to be considered a lie.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Until America tries both extremes, you cannot call your opinion a truth Piotr.  Once America ran totally your way, and totally socialist, you can't decree for sure that one will work better than the other.  The reason being is that other country's failed with socialism, but. America's culture is different.  It might work with us.

I agree with your opinion on the subject, but you are completely ignoring the freedom of speech.  He can express his opinion.  And with the law, how are you a victim?  How is he hurting you?  No victim, no crime.

Wow! Why can't can't American .politics. be like this? Two people with totally different opinions standing up for what's right against extremists. Thank you Taysby, +1.

[Piotr]

Until America tries both extremes, you cannot call your opinion a truth Piotr.  Until America ran totally your way, and totally socialist, you can't decree for sure that one will work better than the other.  The reason being is that other country's failed with socialism, but. America's culture is different.  It might work with us.

I agree with your opinion on the subject, but you are completely ignoring the freedom of speech.  He can express his opinion.  And with the law, how are you a victim?  How is he hurting you?  No victim, no crime.

You are more greedy than the rest of the world  , that's why your economy is failing relatively quickly, socialism doesn't work for you. It takes a little greed and a bit of wits, both of which you have plenty in the US, to break the system. And people do, at the expense of honest people.

Freedom of speech is your natural law when we are both on equal ground. On private property it can be overruled by house rules, on this forum one of the house rules is that when you want to discuss .politics., you must provide facts and logic to back up your claims. If you lie in political discussion, I will strike down upon thee, etc. because it hurts me when seemingly intelligent people spread the lies of socialism. It really does, and this is my ground, so play by my rules. You signed them when applying for the account.

[Double-O-Scotch]

So why don't you ban people for "spreading lies" in the rules section? This is a MtG app after all. It's the primary function of this app. The ability to chat .politics. is an additional feature. So how can you ban someone for making a political statement, but when someone makes a bad ruling in the rules, they are left alone? I despise double standards. Go one way or the other but you shouldnt ban someone just for expressing an opinion you passionately disagree with...

[Piotr]

So why don't you ban people for "spreading lies" in the rules section? This is a MtG app after all. It's the primary function of this app. The ability to chat .politics. is an additional feature. So how can you ban someone for making a political statement, but when someone makes a bad ruling in the rules, they are left alone? I despise double standards. Go one way or the other but you shouldnt ban someone just for expressing an opinion you passionately disagree with...

Our law is a practical tool, I have no double standards, I simply don't frequent the Rules section so it doesn't hurt me in the slightest when people tell things which are false there. I'm not a victim, how can I be?

I don't ban people for making political statements. I ban people when they say something which is not true in a political discussion, and I always do my best to prove the particular statement to be false. I banned no people in Rules and a couple in Discussion because I happen to love political discussions, I always try to take part and I get hurt in them by lies about socialism. I'm a victim, I don't want people to lie in political discussions here (if only because i want to stop them from spreading socialist propaganda).

If you are a victim of people who consistently lie in the Rules section, please point me at the case and we will ban them as required.

[Double-O-Scotch]

also, some people are geniuses that keep up on all of the latest debates and have bar graphs sitting in their filing cabinet for information.

I haven't supplied ANY data at all on this debate.  I just said my opinion.  Are you going to ban me for not providing data?  Im sure it hurts whoever is debating socialism (i can't even remember who it was anymore), so someone is getting hurt, and im providing no data.  Just like the person you just banned for a week.

Wait, can you prove that you haven't provided any data?

[Double-O-Scotch]

Noooooo....😉

[Piotr]

also, some people are geniuses that keep up on all of the latest debates and have bar graphs sitting in their filing cabinet for information.

I haven't supplied ANY data at all on this debate.  I just said my opinion.  Are you going to ban me for not providing data?  Im sure it hurts whoever is debating socialism (i can't even remember who it was anymore), so someone is getting hurt, and im providing no data.  Just like the person you just banned for a week.

You're just babbling here, so I'm not hurt. Amused is more correct word to describe my feelings right now I seriously suspect that you didn't hurt anyone else either.

[Piotr]

So law and ammendment rights changes on private property?  K, I'm just gonna murder my ex next time she steps onto my property.  Its my property, I can do whatever I want on it, right?  Nope.  You can't change laws just because it tis your property.

And how do you call this app private property?  You made it available to the public.  its like you put a sign on your property that says "Everyone is welcome, no one refused"

Concept of property is required for the law to function properly. You cannot kill me on your property because I'm the property of myself, and you can only destroy me if you are dealing punishment, for example in self defense when I'm trespassing. No human being can be fully owned by other human being. You can have limited property rights to other human beings, in case of parent and child. This is common sense.

No I do not welcome everyone on this forum. People who break our law are not welcome at all. FYI, it is perfectly legal under US law to ban people from an internet forum if they break terms and conditions of service they signed. Our law is our terms and conditions.