EVE General Discussion

How would it be defamatory?

Isn't defamation the use of false statements to harm the reputation of someone?

Can someone's own statements in a recording be a false statement?

We shouldn't internet lawyer because neither of us are qualified, it's just a question because I struggle to see the link to defamation.

Ok Im going to throw this out and run
Erotica1 has paid me out, in plex for help-once
We also have had a "winner' join the group- who then lost everything to a Goon recruitment scam
I then gave him enough to restart
I do that to people when I am on
Now to due to PLEX I cant

However I and others will warn the naieve idiots, yes idiots, not the greedy bastards about the problems
For those more legally inclined, if you read the rules, you can never succeed

I warn many new players to wither be a minion and get rewarded or have no dealings with Erotica1
And that any goon recruitment offer is a scam regardless of who gives one

The smoke filled backroom that decided EVE was real, I was an active part, its now gone elsewhere and no one told me where

This is my main
No I am a male

Oh and for the Team speak bit, its because we couldnt figure out eve voice and wanted the recording capability

Yes you can dec me for this, no you will just be wasting isk, I have nonundockable holding alts

Oh and uh, dont be greedy, its a 7 sin for a reason
I doubt Erotica1 is a deitic prosecutor though, however dude does live near the recorded place in in which the devil played a song battle
Well close in Eve terms

PS
Erotica1 has actually gotten people to be interested in EVE when I demonstrate her talents.
So it does work for recruitment putposes

Oh god...

This might be the lamest attemp I've seen yet.

Sadly, someone will actually believe it's "legit" and an actual proof of defense /o\

I'm happy to imagine that you ban every corpmate that uses any death threat, threat of violence or discriminatory speech on coms immediately.

But I admit that's just as much of a straw man argument as yours.

Were the things he said wrong to say? Yes. Would he ordinarily go around saying such things? I know you can't claim that he would just as I can't claim he wouldn't. Who pressured him into a position to say those things and cause his wife to have a panic attack at what she perceived as unusual behavior? Erotica 1.

If a corrupt government official uses all the rules available to him to harass you, to strip you of every last piece of security you have, all within the letter of the law, and all of a sudden you go off cursing at him, he's still the bad guy.

Hey, here's a fun one.

How many gameshows fall under Ripard Teg's definition of "torture", in your estimation?

Pretty much every Japanese one that I've ever seen, for starters.

No, I never said that. I never said slavery is consensual, because it's not. You made that up. A slave doesn't place himself into slavery of his own free will, and hand over his freedoms and rights of his own accord. Sokhar handed over all his isk and assets of his own free will.

I never said domestic violence is consensual, because it's not. You made that up. A victim of domestic violence, physical or otherwise, doesn't place their self in the path of an abuser and say, "hit me, abuse me, make it hurt!" Sokhar handed over all his isk and assets of his own free will.

I never said sex trafficking is consensual, because it's not. You also made that up. A man, woman or child that doesn't want to work in the sex industry isn't going to go and apply for a job in it. Sokhar handed over all his isk and assets of his own free will.

I never said any of what you claim I said, and you are blowing things out of proportion. At NO point did Sokhar not have the choice to walk away. Of course, the mindset required to make that choice would have prevented him from handing his assets over in the first place. Now, I've got you on putting words in my mouth and blowing things out of proportion. Now to seal the deal on your utter inability to achieve rational perspective. The following is the stupidest thing you've ever said:

"If a person is threatened with losing something by walking away - that's coercion buddy. Whether it is physical safety in case of ****, or life in case of slavery, or internet isk, its irrelevant. Coercion is coercion."

If said person hadn't willingly handed over his assets, and they'd been taken from him without his consent and used for coercion, that would be coercion. If he gives them away himself, makes that choice, then it's no longer coercion, it's consent. It's also not real property. It doesn't exist. It's all code and pixels. He lost nothing to be actually coerced with. You do understand the difference between virtual and real, don't you? Cuz if you don't, that's your problem, and probably the source of your confusion here.

I'd put the most likely source of your confusion, however, down to emotion. Your mouth froth =/= righteousness. I think a few victims of real predators would love to tell you a story or two about how predators actually work.

OH snap son. Your on fire.

+9000

Ever seen Silent Library?

No one's name has been slandered or libelled, because "Sokhar" isn't the name of a real person, but a fictional avatar. If there was a law against that, do you know how many people would be in trouble for slandering Wesley Crusher?

Or how about the number of people on this very threat that have libelled Erotica 1? Plenty of lies told about him in here that can be demonstrated to be lies.

That's not really an argument is it? Regardless of the virtuality of this situation it holds up in all respects