next »

[Spanone]

Today I logged on to the server to hear savanah say something along the lines of "Spanone, krux killed me three times, help me." Obviously, this alarmed me so I started to gear up for a potential attack on kruxified1 while I was questioning both sides for more information. From my understanding the event went something like this.

->   Kruxified1 was on Commander&Vbelac's property. Kruxified said this was because he was mining and accidently walked up into there. Savanah went into the property and threatened Kruxified to leave. Kruxified began to argue with Savanah, at some point during this a fight started. I am unsure who started as they differ on this point, but Savanah was killed. At some point Savanah was killed twice more, probably in attempts to come back to Krux and kill him. At this point I logged onto the server and Savanah requested my help. I geared up and listened to both sides as I said above. I came to the conclusion that Kruxified should be pearled because; 1. She killed savanah multiple times and did not repay all her items (It should be noted he did repay her armor), 2. It is likely that Kruxified DID attack Savanahf first because she has a history of killing people and seems to have a rash and violent personality, 3. I thought it would be best to put an end to the violence.

Anyways, I pearled Kruxified, put all the stuff she was holding in a chest and told Savanah to take what she owned. It should be noted that Savanah took, and acknoledges taking, an unknown amount of wood that she did not own. I disagreed saying that she should give it back. At this time she has not. I intend to store all of Krux's possessions in case she is every released. At this point Savanah said something along the lines of "I'll give you your diamond for the pearl now." It should be noted that I did not realize that she was offering a bounty until this point. She threw the pearl on the ground in front of me, I threw it back to her once and said that Kruxified should have no more than a 4 month prison sentence. She said "We'll see", at which point I said, "If you do not release Kruxified1 after 4 months, and if he pays back all the items you lost and offers an apology on the forums I will take action to release him. This is non-negotiable." At this point I picked up the diamond she had been repeatadly throwing on the ground and gave her the pearl, assuming she knew the conditions at this time.

From here we argued for about 20-30 minutes about if he should or should not be released if he hypothetically repays her back. I spoke to Kruxified1 in the end and she seems to have no intent on paying Savanah back or making apologies.

<-

I would also like to add that I am making "Seems like a trustworthy person who wouldn't kill people again" to the conditions for releasing kruxified1, as I don't think I stated that originally. Also, I wouldn't attack Savanah in a hypothetical release scenario. If she refuse to release Krux under the conditions I stated already I would simply break the chest he was in (Most likely, no promises). I don't want to make it violent, but she has implied she would seek violence against me if I did try to break Krux out

I encourage others to argue with things I may have said incorrectly and post their own recounts of the events. If they do I can put them on this post if they request it.


The main disagreement between Savanah and me is that she wants to permanently imprison Kruxified, while I think this is much too harsh a punishment for two killings. I would argue that Savanah is MUCH too liberal with long-term imprisonments as she also said Kruxified should be permanently imprisoned for the first disagreement he had with PlumpDragonFly.

In hindsight I should have not given savanah kruxified's pearl because she seems to want to change the terms of the agreement after it has been made, breaking the agreement. I think this is unethical.

TL:DR-> Krux was trespassing on Commander. Savanah told him to stop. Krux killed savanah (unknown who started the fight), I killed and pearled krux. Savanah has krux's pearl now, we disagree on how long he should be imprisoned.

[SavanahMile]

I can not open what ever you put on here.  So I can not see what you have said

[Spanone]

I added it now, I had a temporary "." beforehand to see if I could edit posts.

I can...

[SavanahMile]

Simple facts:  Kruxified1 attacked and killed me.  I did not attack her, she refused to give me my stuff,  she too had made some nasty comments to me.  I think she is a NUTT, and dangerous.  I saw spanone come online the only person I knew with armor and a pearl and said 1d on her head, he saw there was an issue and rendered aid and pearled her. 


Spanone states: From here we argued for about 20-30 minutes about if he should or should not be released if he hypothetically repays her back. I spoke to Kruxified1 in the end and she seems to have no intent on paying Savanah back or making apologies.

Then what was there to threaten me over?

SHE/Kruxified1 will not make amens per Spanone, I messaged her she did not respond.
So no 30lvls of xp, they are lost and so is my 1diamond, and 40 minutes of my time when he could have mentioned this in the beginning. 
You threatened me, lets get that straight. BUT now there is nothing to debate over this person it is done.  I am not unethical, nor do I believe coercing me, the victim.   Spanone I get what you want to do here but you can't just tell me, the victim, in a threatening manner that I should accept her apology and leave her pearled for 4 months. I DO NOT AGREE WITH A THIRD CHANCE.   I was only agreeing to this third chance since I will either be killed or robbed. but the person refused so we are both off the hook here.  Both party's need to agree and she does not so that's that.

NOTE This is the 2nd time she has been pearled and she has attacked 4 people.   I believe it should be THE VICTIM who has some voice her in setting repayment terms, an apology for 30lvls is not fair.  In the past if someone manage to get unperled and then was pearled a second time that was it!  so we need this rule in place.  If you are pearled and you just do it again, then there is no third chance.  she even lied and said I hit her first, but commanders snitch showed the truth, she hit me first and killed me.  Again this is not the quality of player I want to play with.  I do not want to be threatened either or forced into something that is not reasonable because I am not wearing diamond armor anymore.   

In the future I think only one second chance.  That is your safety net, if you are pearled unjustly, then one deal, IF both party's are willing, but if you do it again.  No deal!!!!!!  I think that is fair.  Other wise we waste precious pearls on repeat offenders.  No Third chance.  I don't want to be coerced and threatened either.   Re-read your log I did not threaten you but I felt threatened by you.  I do agree we should have this standard in place I don't want to be in this position again.  P.S. This town is not working.  Thank you for finally letting me know on this website and not in chat that she will not make amends. 

[Spanone]

I agree with only one more chance until something extremely major (permanent or 1+ years & more xp/pearls to get out). However, I would like to point out that the two issues he has had so far have not been so cut and dry as they appear. In both cases there has been reasonable doubt surrounding the circumstances. He seems to not have any ability or want to do permanent damage either, the worst he has done is kill in circumstances where he obviously had no intent of pearling or trying to run from the community. If he did something extremely clear and extremely bad (stealing from a shop/house, pearling a few people in a clearly undisputed manner, etc.) I would agree that the third time should be more long-term.


Also, your notion of "The victim has full rights" is ridiculous. First-off, in most situations you cannot tell who is the victim. Secondly, just because someone kills you does not give you immunity against the law for whatever you do. I know this may be an unrealistic story, but lets say someone was knew and didn't realize that a certain chest was yours. They broke it open and took the items inside. Later, you pearl them forever and completely grief their house and take all their stuff. Would this not be ridiculous?

The notion "The victim has the voice" should be be rejected. The community should actively be trying to not make people server ridiculous imprisonments and helping each other stop thieves and murderers.

I agree with setting up rules for crimes. I think these rules should not be forced upon anybody either though, an agreement where all existing community members agree would be most ideal. If we do set up a system we should tell new members of the community.

Also, I don't think that it should be second chance every time. Crimes vary GREATLY in magnitude, a petty theft should not be the same as multiple pearlings. I think we should also take the attitude of the wrongdoer into question aswell, there is no sense in keeping someone in jail who has no ability or want to do permanent harm. Obviously this must be taken very seriously, people can be very twisted with their words.

I would like to point out one more thing; I would say that the two conflicts that have existed so far with Kruxified have not been major. Both times Kruxified did NOT pearl, and had no ability to keep up a criminal streak. He obviously poses no threat to those in diamond armor like me and commander and took very little from those he killed (Iron armor). Although what he did is wrong, treating it as being incredibly serious is misleading and stupid. If he had chosen to run away he would have either been caught or been on the run forever, he would be killed if he got near the town.

Last thing I swear, Kruxified seemed to be willing to payback all of savanah's items. When I pearled him he said he only dropped her armor because "that's all she said she wanted." Now obviously savanah would have wanted ALL the things she lost, but she was simply bargaining with Kruxified for what she could because he was the one with the power and items at that point. Kruxified should have repayed all of her items regardless of what she said, and I would argue Kruxified knew that Savannah wanted all the items but was simply trying to take advantage of the situation and make a small profit. This shows obvious immoral intent from Kruxified.

[Simon_Jeeha]

i think we should form a community pearling terms convention

[Spanone]

Simon, you should suggest one to get the conversation started. I would recommend a new topic though.

[Simon_Jeeha]

ya

[Commander]

 "I know this may be an unrealistic story, but lets say someone was knew and didn't realize that a certain chest was yours. They broke it open and took the items inside. Later, you pearl them forever and completely grief their house and take all their stuff. Would this not be ridiculous?"

-Spanone

        That is why we try to negotiate, talk it out, figure out what happened exactly, etc. before we leave them in the end.

        I would also like to point out, the first time I pearled Krux and released her, I said I would have absolutely no mercy next time. If it were my choice, I'd leave her in the end.
.

[vbelac]

And she's public schooled.

[Spanone]

Who?

[Commander]

Kruxified

[SavanahMile]

Commander to add to your point after she killed me and I asked for my stuff not just my armor, I reminded her that this is her second time of this non-scene she lied again and said no one ever told her she could or should not be killing other players. Of course we all know that is a big fat lie! Even Spanone was online that day defending her so he should understand that was her second chance.
She agressed and threatened Plumpdragonfly and killed him just recently.  We had a very good system in the past that seemed to work pretty good, I know Spanone was not part of it but some guidelines are that a victim does have "some voice" is what I said not "FULL" as was stated above sorry he is totally wrong on that.  You say liberal like it is a dirty thing, you realize you are on a Voluntaryist sever right?  And actually it would be very republican of me to ask for the death penalty. 

The victim should be the one determining their loss, not a community, that sounds anything but voluntary.  Also there is away to determine who did what, you just didn't listen to the facts in a voluntary mindset. It would be more liberal to want to allow all criminals to wander free to pillage as they wish.

VOLUNTARYISM -

I did not Volunteer for her to Trespass, I did not agree for her to attack and kill me and steal my stuff.  So right there she is not following the simple guidelines of this server.   Which we ALL need to be following.  If I happen on your place I turn around and leave it as is, I do not break in your chests because I don't know who it belongs to. That's me, I am respecting the property of someone else, but if you are gone from the server never to return  for months and months I can lay secondary claim to your stuff, that is on the server, or in Kruxified1's case I lay full claim to any belongings as she refused to make amends for what she took from me.  30levels of xp, 1 diamond and a night from hell on this server.

she never coughed  up my diamond pick, she was going to keep it!  And as Spanone stated she just dumped part of my stuff, she had no right to any of it, most likely to keep him from coming after her, that shows more intent.    

Vbelac and Commander are really good at stepping back and being unbiased, and no offense but others were not unbiased as they have sided with this same wrong doer twice now, ignoring simple facts that this person has aggressed against 4 people and killed two.  

THAT GOES AGAINST what this server is about.  

This Voluntary-ism server is about property rights, which she was a habitual trespasser, personal property rights, which she has AGAIN attacked 4 players and killed 2, and she was told when she was unpearled don't do this again this is your second chance.  That's why I mentioned if we would have let her go in 4 months then that is a 3rd chance.  

Again in this persons case it is a mute point, I bring it up for future issues.  

We have to think Voluntaryism, and what THIS server is all about.  We all know the rules, and even the simplest of offenders get Pearled eventually when they just don't stop!  Dempsy(old map player) was a hugh example of a million chances, he knew better and still broke into someones property and trashed it because he thought he could get away with it, trashed the public wheat field because he was bored, or did not know why he did it- that is my favorite.  There has to be an end at some point.  
Respect others and their property rights, you can disagree with me all day long, but do not break in my home and rob me, or attack and kill me, that is not Voluntary on my part in any way, or threatening to do so.  My property rights were violated, and I was stolen from.

[SavanahMile]

At this point we all agree she is not coming back, as 1-she was already given a second chance. and 2- she refused to try to take advantage of the generous deal Spanone offered her to payoff my loss.  No remorse or apology to victim, and no compensation to victim.

[Spanone]

I mostly agree, but a few things.

-> You say liberal like it is a dirty thing

I was not referring to the political definition, but the "Not strict or literal; loose or approximate" definition. I was saying you are "loose," as in generous with, the permaban penalty.

->The victim should be the one determining their loss, not a community, that sounds anything but voluntary.  Also there is away to determine who did what, you just didn't listen to the facts in a voluntary mindset. It would be more liberal to want to allow all criminals to wander free to pillage as they wish.

I would say that I did listen to the facts, and still came to the conclusion I did. Also, I question you, what do we do if the "victim" takes advantage of the offender with absurd punishments and reparations, thus creating a new "victim." Should the community sit idly by? I say no, the community we are living in, if we have the responsibility to help each other by pearling the dangerous and the criminals we have the same responsibility from protect those same people from unjust actions. One screw-up doesn't mean that the offender has total control over you, different offenses warrant different punishments. For example, I think a permanent ban for Krux's FIRST offense is way too strong of a suggestion. I would argue that her second is more debatable, but would still not personally force a permanent pearling upon her, like I showed through my actions.

->Vbelac and Commander are really good at stepping back and being unbiased, and no offense but others were not unbiased as they have sided with this same wrong doer twice now

I would like to make this point VERY clear. You have no argument to say that everyone who argued against you is biased. In your opinion, being biased is someone who does not disagree with you, which is the very definition of bias. Additionally, the people who were going against your poorly thought out punishments and arguments were anything but biased. They were trying to fight for justice, they thought that your arguments were incorrect. You have no right to simple force your opponents into sort of "guilt." Please do not treat the people who argued against you as being in anyway affiliated with Kruxified, or even agreeing with anything she might ever say. You have to accept the fact that people WILL disagree with you. Saying statements like "sided with the wrong doer twice" are loaded, and created just to damage the character of those who oppose you. I will not stand for this. These sort of statements are where freedoms and society go down the tubes, into a cesspool of fear, panic, and accusations. I would like to nip these actions at the bud, please don't act like others are arguing for a killer because they are arguing against you, it is simply immoral. You must allow and encourage others to argue against you, not group them all together and say they are defending your worst enemy.

->ignoring simple facts that this person has aggressed against 4 people and killed two. 

Although these facts make Kruxified seem less trustworthy in this situation it is absolutely crucial to see that this in no way proves the events that you stated about this case. You can't put too much weight into these things when trying to be just, everyone deserves the same justice, everyone deserves the same freedom.

-> I did not Volunteer for her to Trespass, I did not agree for her to attack and kill me and steal my stuff. 

This is actually a question for you. Didn't she trespass on commander's property? I must have some of the events confused... Could you please tell me what exactly happened?

->but if you are gone from the server never to return  for months and months I can lay secondary claim to your stuff, that is on the server, or in Kruxified1's case I lay full claim to any belongings as she refused to make amends for what she took from me.

This doesn't sound fair. Somebody being a few for a few months doesn't mean they lose their property. That is insane.

As far as Kruxified1 goes, I agree you should be allowed to take an equivalent to what she owes you, so long as you make everything even in a hypothetical release scenario. (This release is most definitely not going to happen with Kruxified, but is an important idea for future events).