Posts by fssp

Quote

MEGAF4IL The bottom 3 pictures are taken from the first time I had a big issue on Discord with fssp and his friend group (which you're in on), which happened months ago, and has since been dealt with.

In your mind, does this justify what you did?

Putting your hate boner against half of this server's staff team aside, asking for somebody to commit suicide is not acceptable, nor are your previous remarks acceptable. If you don't like someone, block them. You're not an operator: you're a senior administrator and you've been here long enough to handle things maturely.

I am objecting to this appeal for Shrimp's reasoning, and because you have failed to show an iota of regret for what you did. Make no mistake: it is not acceptable to tell others to commit suicide, and before today's incident, you stated that I had "one too few" strokes in my lifetime. The things you have said to administrators and operators alike are not tolerable.

Quote

I was banned so no further drama between fssp and I would happen

You were banned for telling somebody to commit suicide, and because you were harrassing members of this server.

Quote

I assume you've had those images saved this whole time, eh? Waiting for the perfect time to use them and get me removed?

No, those images were easy to find because I already filed a report against you with Fionn.

Quote

that last screen shot is unrelated to this incident and that was made clear on discord... Not sure where you got that from but does make me concerned as to why that appeared in the first place.?

I don't think they're directly related to this incident, however they show that MEGAF4IL has a history of this behavior and failed to learn from the last time something like this happened.

@Reperak#2858 No, I believe that you took your "online life" too seriously in continuing to be irritated by people joking about your previous threads, and you should know that such a negative reaction to any satirical take on your language will only elevate the intensity of such an attack. I appreciate that you're coming to terms with the need to apologize however you still fail to understand what you did wrong, and I believe that you should turn to others for their advice as to how you may better yourself.

Your mission wasn't successful because everybody knew that you were Nathaniel. You're a lot dumber than you think you are.

I first believed this thread to be a joke and as it turns out, it's not. Who gives a shit?

@elmon#2598 The idea of composing an appeal with an expected tone of remorse is comical, in that it would be expected for our players to be remorseful about a punishment issued on a Minecraft server. Our administrators overvalue the impact that this server has on the members who comprise it, as if anybody is sobbing about an indefinite ban issued on here.

As for the standard of demonstrable change, I can agree with this appellee's lack of change being a constructive objection to their return. I personally have no doubt that, if unbanned, this player will do the exact same thing once again.

@redeastwood#2590 I fail to see how using inflammatory language for the sake of being inflammatory, given this player's history of "trolling," warrants an apology with this particular issued punishment's age. If you can't tell, my remark in favor of the appellee's recommendation was facetious; while many potential reasons exist for objecting to this player's return, the "lack of an apology" does not seem to be one of them.

@redeastwood#2568 The full text of this section you are quoting contains the following:

Quote

Reason for indefinite ban. Please do not lie and try to be sincere and apologize as applicable.

The indefinite ban appeal asks for sincerity in the act of providing a descriptive reason for the appellee's punishment, and not in drafting an apology. There is no section of this appeal which demands an apology or show of remorse. In the case of "apologizing as applicable," I fail to see what is applicable about including an apology with that summary (or explanation) of the warranting action as determined by the original poster.

I reiterate my original decision as made in this player's now-expired appeal: vouch and recommendation for admin.

@Zarcana#2560 Considering the incident in question had occurred almost eight months ago, do you really expect the appellee to demonstrate regret? I believe that expecting a heartwarming apology from an indefinite ban appeal is unreasonable, especially considering that the appeal template (which was followed in this case) does not request the subject to write on the topic of, or compose, regretfulness.

@videogamesm12#2469 Whether or not the drive is internal or external to the machine is not relevant to the matter of selecting a grade of storage medium best suited for long-term archival means.

@wild1145#2455 Because, as inferring from this post, the information is currently being stored on a drive which hosts the original poster's operating system and commonly indexed system files. A disk's lifespan is decreased with frequent reading/writing, and when you are storing sensitive information, the best way to combat the frequent transferring of that data is to care for the health of the storage medium on which it is stored.

"External high-capacity hard drive [...] suited to your needs" refers to a disk which is designed for archival purposes thus placing an importance on reliability and high capacity instead of fast read/write speeds, wake/seek times, et cetera.

It's poor logistics to store that much sensitive information on a storage medium which you are indexing every day, being your computer's hard drive. You should be storing this information in the cloud, or consider investing in an external high-capacity hard drive which is better suited to your needs.

This thread reads like a written review of software, but is comprised of a support question despite not being in the correct board for either of those things. That being said, what are you asking here? You've failed to explain why you decided to re-install Sierra as opposed to Big Sur which will inevitably cause issues with downgrading.

Vouch and recommend.

Quote

RedEastWood You said that the word "swear" only had partial connotations of an oath - and I disproved it by saying that one of the most important jobs in the world (US President) requires the president elect to "swear in".

The word "swear" only carries the partial connotation of an oath because the word has a meaning, that meaning being the one referenced in this appeal's template, of a transactionary agreement to conform with a set of given rules, or more broadly, an agreement to which one "swears." You're not disproving this by providing an example of the same word being used in a different context; in etymology, it is widely understood that words carry more than one meaning. I understand the angle you've detailed, and have rejected it out of being immaterial to the ultimate matter of the applicant's intent on conforming to our rules, something which has yet to be answered.

Quote

Luke is right, this is a silly conversation especially since we keep going in circles.

This is correct: you're not going to change my opinion on the matter, just as I do not expect to sway yours: I stand by my original post.

Quote

Luke It was the truth and as far as I know, I cannot swear in Islam. I thank Red for taking his time out and researching into it, as he’s doing a lot for me.

I find it increasingly likely that man has misunderstood the purpose behind this ban appeal's template: it is not to ensure a solemn undertaking of conduct with our rules, however act as a question of the applicant's sincerity in understanding the gravity of their actions, or make clear that they disagree with the punishment taken against them. To skip the question purely because the word "swear" is used to describe this transaction, and one's faith condemns the act of "swearing" with regard to the word's historical meaning, seems rather semantic and should at least substitute that agreement with one in accordance (with) their own interpretation or religious practice.

@redeastwood#2038 And "interpreting the word as I wish" was accomplished by my original post, in which I interpreted the ban appeal's usage of the word "swear" to imply a casual agreement of conduct with our server's rules, which is the obvious usage of the word, because to act as if appealing a ban from a video game server necessitates an unbroken vow of allegiance is foolish. It is equally foolish to compare the usage of the word "swear" as a social contract for a ban appeal, serving the purpose of gathering a player's intentions, to the swearing in of the President of the United States. Made me laugh, though.

Quote

I meant that I was not going to respond any more as this useless argument was taking too much of my time.

...though you did respond, thus demonstrating my point that pledging to no longer respond in a linear discussion is useless. There would be no need to respond until the recipient posts a reply, and after I did post a reply, you posted a response.

@redeastwood#1969 Except that you're conflating the meaning of "swearing" upon a deity or higher power with the contemporary usage of "swear" as a social transaction of undertaking to comply with a particular set of rules, the second context being that which this appeal requests of applicants. The word "swear" varies between blind affirmation and the act of "swearing by" to the casual taking of a promise to the effect of good conduct.

Quote

You can interpret the template as you please, but the word swear does have connotations of an oath and bounding agreement - therefor making it completely valid for Ashaz to be unwilling to swear.

By this logic, any word with the partial connotation of a meaning irrelevant to the context in which it is being used would be unlawful? I fail to see how this train of reasoning applies to the majority of the English language nor does it align in good faith with the scripture that has been quoted, demonstrating the grounds you've referenced.

On another note, ending any post with "I'm going to leave it here" is futile because it's always "left there" until somebody replies to that post.

Quote

@redeastwood#1928 Swearing to/on someone is what I'm talking about here - not a religious oath.

Neither a religious oath nor the act of swearing to/on someone is requested by the ban appeal template, making this scriptural argument ultimately irrelevant to the matter of Ashaz's sincerity in his original post.

@redeastwood#1919 Many religions frown upon swearing to God or before a deity which is irrelevant to my post because the appeal in question does not require that an applicant swear before a deity, however "swear to never do whatever you did again."

Quote

Based on this using the Prophet, his family, or others for the purposes of affirming speech as in the question wherein actual oaths is a legally permitted matter in which there is nothing wrong due to its being mentioned in the speech of the Prophet and his Companions as well as the people’s custom adopting it in a way that is not counter to the legal tradition. It is not forbidden or an act of associating partners with God and Muslims do not need to make allegations about God without knowledge.

In addition, the sources you linked do not justify your argument rather solidify my critique of his complete refusal to swear, regardless of that which he swears upon, adherence to this server's policies going forward. If "it is unlawful to take an oath by anyone except Allah" then nothing would be preventing him from taking an oath to "swear to never do whatever you did again" by his higher power according to the literature which you have included in your reply.

Quote

Allaah will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masaakeen (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allaah makes clear to you His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) that you may be grateful.

In response to your final statement:

Quote

you have assumed that every religion has the same laws of taking oaths.

This is false, and an intellectually dishonest method of discrediting my original post without providing any real substance to that effect. As the ban appeal asks for no oath to be taken on behalf of one's child, or parent, the potential for that oath to be taken before a deity would not be in vain according to the scriptural context you've put forward. Entertaining the falsehood, would it not be haram to go forth with such disregard for the laws of a community and typical authority as exercised by its members, the reasoning behind our original poster's punishment to begin with?

For those who do not wish to read this post of mine, in short, the objection stands along with my original critique.

@Rock2020#1909 You are displaying paranoia by putting forth the theory that one of our staffmembers has altered an image to frame you, which they have not, as demonstrated by the image's transparency and unique font which correlates the graphic's two defining elements (the sign which you placed, and the log excerpt signifying your being responsible for the placement of the aforementioned sign) that couldn't be more readily available.

Block placement logs have previously been open to the public in that they could be inspected by anybody with previous access to the server using the inspector tool. Unfortunately, recent circumstances have barred this from being possible to the layman.

I see no poor treatment in this thread, other than on your behalf directed towards the authorities which is not only disrespectful however lessens your chances of being prematurely unbanned.