These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Apology

First post First post
Author
MyGoodApollo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3181 - 2012-03-28 11:17:46 UTC
I think lots of people have said stupid things. This should no way be a reason for someone to lose such a position. Just because Gordon Brown called a woman a Bigot doesn't mean he was stripped of his position then and there. Mittens was elected for another term, he should serve for another term and if this incident angered people enough, they should vote for someone else next year.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3182 - 2012-03-28 11:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Yeep
Jade Constantine wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

Its not about me. If you want to address the issue by all means do so.


You're trying to present your own opinions as those of the majority. Questioning your grounds to do that is entirely relevant.


So far there seems a majority in favour of Alexander Gianturco being forced to resign as expressed in the very many public threads on the issue. But once again, if you want to talk about the misdeeds of your leader I'm very happy to do so. Otherwise, run along.


People who feel strongly about things tend to make the most noise, this shouldn't be news to you. And I've expressed my distaste at what The Mittani did at least once in this thread, you can go look for it if you want. Then again I could go dig up the posts where you claim your massive pile of internet forum likes makes you more important than everyone else (hint: you probably don't want me to do this).

Edit: I'm pretty bored so here we go: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1014028#post1014028
How about you take your own advice, admit you made a mistake, said something stupid and resign as self appointed voice of the community instead of trying to weasel out of it by deflecting. Or are you a hypocrite?
ExhumeToConsume
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3183 - 2012-03-28 11:21:46 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:

The Mittani, aka Alex, the chairman of the CSM, a body elected to represent us players, did.

Next question?


Who appointed you the spokesperson for "us players"? Jade will be angry that the role is being contested.
SamtheDog
Singularity.
#3184 - 2012-03-28 11:23:23 UTC  |  Edited by: SamtheDog
The Mittani wrote:
This has been hanging over my head since Thursday when I stumbled away from the Alliance Panel with a vague sense that I had done something horrible. I didn't know the extent of how much of a shitheel I had been until today, when footage of the presentation went up. As many of you now know, I gave out the in-game character name of a Mackinaw miner if anyone had wanted to blow him up - except that I was so smashed that I didn't recall exactly what I said (as anyone who was there can tell you). When I came to the forums the other day and saw threads complaining about my behavior - not remembering what I'd said - I assumed that I was enduring the usual anti-Goonswarm trolls, and posted something like "deal with it~" in my usual "The Mittani" way.

Then I landed, and saw the article listing my actual quote.

Christ.

I feel absolutely ashamed of my behavior at the Alliance Panel. It's one thing to play a villain in an online roleplaying game - when I post on these forums or on twitter, I usually do so as 'The Mittani', and do my level best to convince everyone that I'm an unrepentant space villain, as that kind of facade provides an in-game advantage to me and my alliance. But I am not that character in real life, as anyone who has met me can attest. I went way, way, /way/ past the line on Thursday night by mocking the Mackinaw miner at a real-life event. I, as a person, am not the entity that I play in EVE; I am not actually a sociopath or a sadist, and I certainly don't want people to kill themselves in real life over an internet spaceship game, no matter what I may say or do within the game itself. CCP may say 'EVE is Real', but EVE is not real - and the line between the game and reality should not be overstepped.

I'm relieved to discover that the Mackinaw miner is doing fine and mining away, despite being blown up by Goonswarm in-game. He deserves, and he has, my heartfelt apologies - here in public as well as a private apology. There's no excuse for what I did - while some might try to use my inebriation as a mitigating factor, I put myself in that compromised mental state, and the guilt of that is entirely mine.

If I could go back in time and not have included the slide mentioning the miner, I would do so. While the Eve Online character "The Mittani" would never apologize for any sort of villany in game, I myself, as Alex Gianturco, feel utterly ashamed and sickened by my behavior.



Sounds like a nice apology, however it's not enough

IF you really felt bad about what you did, you would not have done that. Even worse, you would have had enough common sense not to even think it was a smart thing to do or say in a public forum.

I don't believe your apology is sincere. If it were, you would have resigned your position in eve and not insulted the person by tossing them some isk to make this problem 'go away'.

It sounds more like damage control with your supporters trying to create an atmosphere of forgiveness. However, this is not a sincere expression of support, but more a form of poltical support for their cause. I don't think your allies really care if they made this guy kill himself. He's be forgotten within a few weeks anyways.

I think you will do whatever is in your best interests, and if you harm another player in real life (someone you don't know) you'd do it w/o really caring.

How do I know this? You did this publicly already, while at the same time givng a cheap apology. However, if you took real responsibility, you'd actually resign your position rather than tossing the victim a few isk and keeping your job which is far more profitable.

In short, you're a fundamentally broken person imho.

And I don't accept your apology. Your words are meaningless. Try actually DOING something to make this right rather than cough up a few words. Your behaviour is truly disgusting.

Sam
Josef Djugashvilis
#3185 - 2012-03-28 11:25:53 UTC
I have no vested interest whether mittens resigns or not - I do not own a Titan nor do I mine.

In fact if mittens does resign, we will miss the easy laughs we can now have at his expense. Poor soul.

But he does seem to be struggling with, 'step two, resign'

Perhaps this was just another drunken outburst on his part?

This is not a signature.

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#3186 - 2012-03-28 11:25:56 UTC
Yeep wrote:

People who feel strongly about things tend to make the most noise, this shouldn't be news to you. And I've expressed my distaste at what The Mittani did at least once in this thread, you can go look for it if you want. Then again I could go dig up the posts where you claim your massive pile of internet forum likes makes you more important than everyone else (hint: you probably don't want me to do this).


I imagine you might like to deflect conversation but lets not. So you've expressed distaste at what Alexander Gianturco did at Fanfest. Do you believe he can continue as Chairman of the CSM and represent the game of eve online in the media and press given the current storm around cyber-bullying in a climate where the industry has already had to deal with the fallout from the Aris Bakhtanians "fighting game" issue?

If you'd like to step back from the trolling we can have a discussion of this certainly.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

TheButcherPete
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#3187 - 2012-03-28 11:30:15 UTC
Mittens resigning from the CSM CHANGES NOTHING.

Don't resign Mittani!

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]

Temulkar Blaine
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3188 - 2012-03-28 11:33:00 UTC
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Act was passed following concerns that stalking was not dealt with effectively under the existing legislation. The Act des not refer solely to stalking but also covers harassment in a wider sense. The Act states that it is unlawful to cause harassment, alarm or distress by a course of conduct and states that ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:

amounts to harassment of another
he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other.’

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.

Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.

The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
causes any such message or matter to be so
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false,
causes such a message to be sent; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network


Thats UK law on cyberbullying.

1. Alexander pursued a course of conduct that amounted to harrassment of another individual, as a former lawwyer he knows or ought to know that would be harrassment. Inebriation is not an excuse. So there is an argument that he has breached the protection from harrassment act in the uk.

2. Alexandeer used threatening and abusive language with an intent to cause harm whether in jest or not is not material. That is a breach of the criminal justice act.

3. Alexander sent a clear and threatening electronic message which is in breach of the malicious communication act.

4. Alexander sent a public commuciaction wth the purpose of causing annoyance and needless anxiety to another in breach of the communications act.


Maybe those of you trivialising this issue need to take a good look at yourselves. Cyberbullying costs lives. We are fortunate in this case that it hasnt however Eve wont be so fortunate in the future if this behaviiour is allowed to go unchallenged.

Alexander was incredibly stupid whilst drunk he made an odious statement that is clearly in breach of UK/EU law. Laws which were used on monday to sentence a twitter user for six months in prison for abusing Patrick Muamba after his collapse. In effect a student got sent down for mocking Muamba and saying he hoped he would die. That student didnt incite others to harrass anyone which is considered a more serious offence.

Suicide is an incredibly emotive issue one I would have thought the goons of all people would be sensitive to. Maybe those of you trolling on this thread need to take a look at yourselves. YOur defending the indefesible.


Alexander has said he will do the right thing and resign and I applaud him for that. It is an act of contrition that would go some way to rehabilitating him in my eyes. To try and weasel out of that action now would be reprehensible.

As far as the legal situation in Iceland is concerned they have applied for EU membership and are currently alighning their legal system to reflect EU law. CCP dont really have any choice but to investegate this and act accordingly. If they do not then they leave themselves open to litigation and or prosecution is situations like this happen and sombody stupid acts on it.

Alexander man up and do the right thing, resign.
Frying Doom
#3189 - 2012-03-28 11:33:57 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
Mittens resigning from the CSM CHANGES NOTHING.

Don't resign Mittani!

So you would like him ban hammered? Thats a bit harsh don't you think or are you suggesting CCP makes real life threats acceptable or is it that as the CSM chairman you believe he should be able to do what ever he wants without consequences?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Valearx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3190 - 2012-03-28 11:35:25 UTC
Temulkar Blaine wrote:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Act was passed following concerns that stalking was not dealt with effectively under the existing legislation. The Act des not refer solely to stalking but also covers harassment in a wider sense. The Act states that it is unlawful to cause harassment, alarm or distress by a course of conduct and states that ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:

amounts to harassment of another
he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other.’

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.

Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.

The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
causes any such message or matter to be so
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false,
causes such a message to be sent; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network


Thats UK law on cyberbullying.

1. Alexander pursued a course of conduct that amounted to harrassment of another individual, as a former lawwyer he knows or ought to know that would be harrassment. Inebriation is not an excuse. So there is an argument that he has breached the protection from harrassment act in the uk.

2. Alexandeer used threatening and abusive language with an intent to cause harm whether in jest or not is not material. That is a breach of the criminal justice act.

3. Alexander sent a clear and threatening electronic message which is in breach of the malicious communication act.

4. Alexander sent a public commuciaction wth the purpose of causing annoyance and needless anxiety to another in breach of the communications act.


Maybe those of you trivialising this issue need to take a good look at yourselves. Cyberbullying costs lives. We are fortunate in this case that it hasnt however Eve wont be so fortunate in the future if this behaviiour is allowed to go unchallenged.

Alexander was incredibly stupid whilst drunk he made an odious statement that is clearly in breach of UK/EU law. Laws which were used on monday to sentence a twitter user for six months in prison for abusing Patrick Muamba after his collapse. In effect a student got sent down for mocking Muamba and saying he hoped he would die. That student didnt incite others to harrass anyone which is considered a more serious offence.

Suicide is an incredibly emotive issue one I would have thought the goons of all people would be sensitive to. Maybe those of you trolling on this thread need to take a look at yourselves. YOur defending the indefesible.


Alexander has said he will do the right thing and resign and I applaud him for that. It is an act of contrition that would go some way to rehabilitating him in my eyes. To try and weasel out of that action now would be reprehensible.

As far as the legal situation in Iceland is concerned they have applied for EU membership and are currently alighning their legal system to reflect EU law. CCP dont really have any choice but to investegate this and act accordingly. If they do not then they leave themselves open to litigation and or prosecution is situations like this happen and sombody stupid acts on it.

Alexander man up and do the right thing, resign.


You're applying EU/UK law to an American playing an Icelandic game. Nice one...
Simvastatin Montelukast
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#3191 - 2012-03-28 11:36:58 UTC
Temulkar Blaine wrote:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Act was passed following concerns that stalking was not dealt with effectively under the existing legislation. The Act des not refer solely to stalking but also covers harassment in a wider sense. The Act states that it is unlawful to cause harassment, alarm or distress by a course of conduct and states that ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:

amounts to harassment of another
he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other.’

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.

Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.

The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
causes any such message or matter to be so
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false,
causes such a message to be sent; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network


Thats UK law on cyberbullying.

1. Alexander pursued a course of conduct that amounted to harrassment of another individual, as a former lawwyer he knows or ought to know that would be harrassment. Inebriation is not an excuse. So there is an argument that he has breached the protection from harrassment act in the uk.

2. Alexandeer used threatening and abusive language with an intent to cause harm whether in jest or not is not material. That is a breach of the criminal justice act.

3. Alexander sent a clear and threatening electronic message which is in breach of the malicious communication act.

4. Alexander sent a public commuciaction wth the purpose of causing annoyance and needless anxiety to another in breach of the communications act.


Maybe those of you trivialising this issue need to take a good look at yourselves. Cyberbullying costs lives. We are fortunate in this case that it hasnt however Eve wont be so fortunate in the future if this behaviiour is allowed to go unchallenged.

Alexander was incredibly stupid whilst drunk he made an odious statement that is clearly in breach of UK/EU law. Laws which were used on monday to sentence a twitter user for six months in prison for abusing Patrick Muamba after his collapse. In effect a student got sent down for mocking Muamba and saying he hoped he would die. That student didnt incite others to harrass anyone which is considered a more serious offence.

Suicide is an incredibly emotive issue one I would have thought the goons of all people would be sensitive to. Maybe those of you trolling on this thread need to take a look at yourselves. YOur defending the indefesible.


Alexander has said he will do the right thing and resign and I applaud him for that. It is an act of contrition that would go some way to rehabilitating him in my eyes. To try and weasel out of that action now would be reprehensible.

As far as the legal situation in Iceland is concerned they have applied for EU membership and are currently alighning their legal system to reflect EU law. CCP dont really have any choice but to investegate this and act accordingly. If they do not then they leave themselves open to litigation and or prosecution is situations like this happen and sombody stupid acts on it.

Alexander man up and do the right thing, resign.


Damn, Lots of words to say "resign"
SamtheDog
Singularity.
#3192 - 2012-03-28 11:37:10 UTC  |  Edited by: SamtheDog
Frying Doom wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
Mittens resigning from the CSM CHANGES NOTHING.

Don't resign Mittani!

So you would like him ban hammered? Thats a bit harsh don't you think or are you suggesting CCP makes real life threats acceptable or is it that as the CSM chairman you believe he should be able to do what ever he wants without consequences?


I would prefer to see him face criminal prosecution for what he did. A ban is far too lenient.

I suspect Goons would glady let people suffer in RL if it benefitted them. Their postings on this thread seem to support this claim. Supporting cyber-bullying is not only incomprehensible, but it tells you a great deal about the general mores of the goons. Do what you can and literally see how far you can push someone over the edge at a fanfest.

The supportive comments are goons...which is hardly a surprise.

I guess life is considered cheap where you live.

Sam
Kitfox Mikakka
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3193 - 2012-03-28 11:37:36 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Do you believe he can continue as Chairman of the CSM and represent the game of eve online in the media and press given the current storm around cyber-bullying in a climate where the industry has already had to deal with the fallout from the Aris Bakhtanians "fighting game" issue?


Yes, I do, because I believe anyone who would seriously and honestly care and feel bad about something like cyber-bullying in EVE Online would have already been turned off of it by the rather hands off approach CCP takes to things like griefing, scamming, and other not so nice-guy things that make EVE what it is. On top of that, given the news media's tendency to pick up hot button issues and stories then drop them for whatever the next hot button story or issue is means this will have virtually no long-term effects on the 'industry' or EVE online, at least profitability wise.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3194 - 2012-03-28 11:39:25 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Yeep wrote:

People who feel strongly about things tend to make the most noise, this shouldn't be news to you. And I've expressed my distaste at what The Mittani did at least once in this thread, you can go look for it if you want. Then again I could go dig up the posts where you claim your massive pile of internet forum likes makes you more important than everyone else (hint: you probably don't want me to do this).


I imagine you might like to deflect conversation but lets not. So you've expressed distaste at what Alexander Gianturco did at Fanfest. Do you believe he can continue as Chairman of the CSM and represent the game of eve online in the media and press given the current storm around cyber-bullying in a climate where the industry has already had to deal with the fallout from the Aris Bakhtanians "fighting game" issue?

If you'd like to step back from the trolling we can have a discussion of this certainly.



In my opinion the apology was enough, the isk from his personal wallet was more than needed but if he felt he had to do it then I respect that. If you're unwilling to accept the apology as sincere (which I don't think is the case from your earlier posts but other people will read this) then theres a good chance you're a pitchfork carrying lynchmob and nothing anyone says will convince you until The Mittani hangs.

I think if people with conflicting political agendas weren't trying their hardest to spread misinformation about this unfortunate event it would all have blown over days ago. Any sweeping game changes CCP has to make will be on their heads, not The Mittani's but again, nothing I say will convince them of that. I'd hope most of them are just too short sighted to see the likely consequences of their actions. Not to mention the extra harassment of the player in question that the publicity over this issue has caused (but thats good harassment right).

I also think (and theres plenty of evidence to support this right here in this thread) that a lot of the people calling for his resignation haven't even taken the time to think about the issues. Theres a massive bandwagon right now and a lot of people just like bandwagons.

Finally I think kneejerk resignations are bad for society as a whole despite how trendy they are right now. The Mittani is good at being the chair of the CSM and a good CSM chair makes for a healthier Eve. Sure he should be punished, I'd be pretty chill with a temp ban and never being allowed to speak on the Alliance panel again but his resignation won't solve any actual problems.

Look at all that effortposting >:(
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#3195 - 2012-03-28 11:41:58 UTC
SamtheDog wrote:

I guess life is considered cheap where you live.


I guess brain is considered expensive where you live.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3196 - 2012-03-28 11:42:15 UTC
Threadnaught still going strong after nearly 3500 posts in barely a day and its still pwning idiots that take things too personally even after a guy appologizes.

We need to get this Super Capital thread nerfed asap!
Temulkar Blaine
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3197 - 2012-03-28 11:43:32 UTC
Valearx wrote:
Temulkar Blaine wrote:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Act was passed following concerns that stalking was not dealt with effectively under the existing legislation. The Act des not refer solely to stalking but also covers harassment in a wider sense. The Act states that it is unlawful to cause harassment, alarm or distress by a course of conduct and states that ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:

amounts to harassment of another
he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other.’

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.

Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.

The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
causes any such message or matter to be so
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false,
causes such a message to be sent; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network


Thats UK law on cyberbullying.

1. Alexander pursued a course of conduct that amounted to harrassment of another individual, as a former lawwyer he knows or ought to know that would be harrassment. Inebriation is not an excuse. So there is an argument that he has breached the protection from harrassment act in the uk.

2. Alexandeer used threatening and abusive language with an intent to cause harm whether in jest or not is not material. That is a breach of the criminal justice act.

3. Alexander sent a clear and threatening electronic message which is in breach of the malicious communication act.

4. Alexander sent a public commuciaction wth the purpose of causing annoyance and needless anxiety to another in breach of the communications act.


Maybe those of you trivialising this issue need to take a good look at yourselves. Cyberbullying costs lives. We are fortunate in this case that it hasnt however Eve wont be so fortunate in the future if this behaviiour is allowed to go unchallenged.

Alexander was incredibly stupid whilst drunk he made an odious statement that is clearly in breach of UK/EU law. Laws which were used on monday to sentence a twitter user for six months in prison for abusing Patrick Muamba after his collapse. In effect a student got sent down for mocking Muamba and saying he hoped he would die. That student didnt incite others to harrass anyone which is considered a more serious offence.

Suicide is an incredibly emotive issue one I would have thought the goons of all people would be sensitive to. Maybe those of you trolling on this thread need to take a look at yourselves. YOur defending the indefesible.


Alexander has said he will do the right thing and resign and I applaud him for that. It is an act of contrition that would go some way to rehabilitating him in my eyes. To try and weasel out of that action now would be reprehensible.

As far as the legal situation in Iceland is concerned they have applied for EU membership and are currently alighning their legal system to reflect EU law. CCP dont really have any choice but to investegate this and act accordingly. If they do not then they leave themselves open to litigation and or prosecution is situations like this happen and sombody stupid acts on it.

Alexander man up and do the right thing, resign.


You're applying EU/UK law to an American playing an Icelandic game. Nice one...



The offence took place in Iceland which as I point out is bringing its legal system into line with the EU so being in Iceland is no excuse. Nor is being an american. In fact US law is just as clear on this. He really has done somthing that stepped not only over the lines of decency but also puts himself into a very shady legal situation. We can only be thankful that nobody acted on Alexanders stupidity but CCP need to cover themselves and take steps to ensure this does not happen again.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#3198 - 2012-03-28 11:46:26 UTC
Valearx wrote:
Temulkar Blaine wrote:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Act was passed following concerns that stalking was not dealt with effectively under the existing legislation. The Act des not refer solely to stalking but also covers harassment in a wider sense. The Act states that it is unlawful to cause harassment, alarm or distress by a course of conduct and states that ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:

amounts to harassment of another
he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other.’

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.

Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.

The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
causes any such message or matter to be so
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false,
causes such a message to be sent; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network


Thats UK law on cyberbullying.

1. Alexander pursued a course of conduct that amounted to harrassment of another individual, as a former lawwyer he knows or ought to know that would be harrassment. Inebriation is not an excuse. So there is an argument that he has breached the protection from harrassment act in the uk.

2. Alexandeer used threatening and abusive language with an intent to cause harm whether in jest or not is not material. That is a breach of the criminal justice act.

3. Alexander sent a clear and threatening electronic message which is in breach of the malicious communication act.

4. Alexander sent a public commuciaction wth the purpose of causing annoyance and needless anxiety to another in breach of the communications act.


Maybe those of you trivialising this issue need to take a good look at yourselves. Cyberbullying costs lives. We are fortunate in this case that it hasnt however Eve wont be so fortunate in the future if this behaviiour is allowed to go unchallenged.

Alexander was incredibly stupid whilst drunk he made an odious statement that is clearly in breach of UK/EU law. Laws which were used on monday to sentence a twitter user for six months in prison for abusing Patrick Muamba after his collapse. In effect a student got sent down for mocking Muamba and saying he hoped he would die. That student didnt incite others to harrass anyone which is considered a more serious offence.

Suicide is an incredibly emotive issue one I would have thought the goons of all people would be sensitive to. Maybe those of you trolling on this thread need to take a look at yourselves. YOur defending the indefesible.


Alexander has said he will do the right thing and resign and I applaud him for that. It is an act of contrition that would go some way to rehabilitating him in my eyes. To try and weasel out of that action now would be reprehensible.

As far as the legal situation in Iceland is concerned they have applied for EU membership and are currently alighning their legal system to reflect EU law. CCP dont really have any choice but to investegate this and act accordingly. If they do not then they leave themselves open to litigation and or prosecution is situations like this happen and sombody stupid acts on it.

Alexander man up and do the right thing, resign.


You're applying EU/UK law to an American playing an Icelandic game. Nice one...



He's just pointing out that what Alexander Gianturco (an apparently ex lawyer) did while drunk on stage at fanfest has just had a guy banged up in prison for six months in the UK. Nobody is arguing that UK law should have validity over a US citizen (which would a sentiment we'd appreciate your politicians would adopt in the case of our file-sharing students getting extradited by the way) - But it would be ridiculously short-sighted for CCP as a company to ignore the potential bad-press and impact that having the player representative chair of their game to remain unpunished for stomping his drunken way into a very big ticket media focus at the moment.

UK student does jail time for hoping an injured footballer dies.
US ex lawyer calls for a fellow player to be harrassed into suicide.

Those are two headlines that can certainly appear in the mainstream media and there is sufficient interest to make this happen.

Alexander Gianturco needs to resign and do the decent thing and get out of the media spotlight fast.







The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#3199 - 2012-03-28 11:48:32 UTC
Temulkar Blaine,

Your posting clearly shows that not even you're not a lawyer, but also you don't have even a vague understanding of law.

also, lolUK.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos

TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3200 - 2012-03-28 11:49:09 UTC
People totally read this far.

This is all a load of tosh if you ask me.

Political correctness gone mad.

If it was really as easy as "so kill yourself" or "everyone get that guy" to have things happen, I'd be wielding it with such might and power the global population would hit 500mil in no time.

To those that are outraged - lighten up already
To the wis - get some actual help if you need it, life happens, you kinda gotta role with it.
To mittani - way to break a brand, stick in character or the whole thing breaks
To the "ambulance chasing lawyers" who are flocking around this - please.... reconsider your lives, find a job that makes you less of a parasite.