Mach
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mach
-
-
Reading Shockpoint's reply I believe there are a fair few errors and thus found it pertinent to reply.
23 hours ago, Shockpoint said:Not a word was said to Security, nor were they permitted to be brought back to life afterwards, which was a breach of Space Law under Murder (preventing the revival of a crew member facilitates to Murder instead of Manslaughter).
The first part is true, although this was necessary as had I stopped he would've gotten away and killed my coworker, I was on the asteroid and as such calling security would've resulted in a significant wait that would've ended with a dead miner. As for the second part, totally incorrect. I never kept anyone from retrieving the body and cloning or attempting a revival, in fact I never even moved the cultist from the tile that they had died on. In terms of your quotation of space law that's an entirely IC issue and not really relevant to the topic in my opinion (and I would've been cleared of the charges under the self defense stipulation anyway) which focuses on OOC rules and interpretations.
23 hours ago, Shockpoint said:Henceforth I had made the warning as this is very unfair to the cultist in question, as well as the cult in general, not to mention that normal players should not be taking such matters so far into their own hands as doing so leads to self-antagging/validhunting which is strictly against our rules.
I disagree with this first statement entirely, the cultist met their fate through their own actions entirely. This was not a one sides situation but as Neca pointed out an escalation. The cultist had the chance to get away but had turned around and decided to engage my armored Ripley with cult magic and melee, all I did was simply respond with attacks of my own which happened to be much more effective, had he not chosen to do that or simply dropped the miner and fled none of this would've happened as my goal was just to save my coworker, full stop. Currently rule 8 has no stipulation regarding appropriate force when countering an antag in its text which I feel is very relevant to the topic at hand seeing as how the cultist's death is the point of contention. The only reason the cultist was killed and removed from the round was so I could bring another player back into by healing them from crit with my hivelord core, a pretty fair trade all things considered methinks.
23 hours ago, Shockpoint said:This can honestly just be a simple mistake as a player that I don't believe will happen again whatsoever.
When the situation was unfolding the exchange shown in the attached image was a big reason I made this complaint; it felt to me as if you were insinuating that I had willingly and knowingly broken the rules, however I still don't believe I have violated any of the rules applicable and in writing to this server. I have already explained my actions and laid out a clear and concise table of events and my reasoning behind them which I believe should exonerate me entirely. As for this being a mistake if, with the advantage of hindsight and knowing how all this would play out, I was given a chance to do this all over again I would make the same choice. I am not a validhunter, nor will I ever be, and I have done nothing wrong.
-
1
-
-
Well I was in a Ripley during the chase and had followed behind squeezing them with hydraulic clamps until they were slow enough to where I could use the drill. The only reason I felt the need to use the drill was the proximity of them to the injured miner I was trying to save (only three tiles as mentioned previously) and the fact I had to drop my KC and occupy both my hands to get the hivelord core to save the guy. Regardless of the tools used the end result would have been the same, I had to knock him into crit so he would drop the other miner and so I would have the security needed to render aid and with this happening on the asteroid no medical or security staff would have been able to arrive in time to save them. As for me, I don't think it would've been realistic to attempt to render aid to a cultist as IC I really have no reason to attempt such a thing.
-
Just realized I posted it in resolved, off to a great start!
-
Admin(s) Key: Shockpoint
Your ckey: Machzero7
Your Discord name: N/ADate(s) of incident (GMT preferred): 5-28 6am GMT (or somewhere close to that time.)
Nature of complaint: misapplication of rules
Brief description: Given a warning for rule 8 violation while saving a fellow miner.
Full description of events: While mining on a confirmed cultist round I stumbled across two miners just outside the outpost airlock, one of these miners was in critical condition, handcuffed, had his comms removed, and was being dragged by the other. I close the distance in my mech (and cancel out a drill attack on the offender which was a flubbed shift click) and try to initiate some form of conversation when the miner bolts, still dragging my critically injured coworker the whole way. I pursue them in a bid to save my injured companion, during which the offender stops multiple times and attempts to fight my mech even using magic at one point and thus confirming to my character this is a cultist and a very real threat. When I eliminate the cultist so I can have security to render aid to my coworker (who was only 3 tiles away from the offender who had held onto him until the very last moment.) I was messaged by Shockpoint and asked what I was doing, when I explained he accused me of ignoring the proper channels and going against the rules. The conversation ended with the picture below after some time spent explaining what happened. Rule 8 states the following: "It is only the job of Security to stop Antagonists. If you are not a member of Security, then hunting Antagonists is not something you should be doing. You may not drop your job, or go out of your way, to hunt Antagonists. You may, however, defend yourself or others from Antagonist attack if you happen to witness it". I was at my place of work doing my job and in no way shape or form had gone out of my way to find an engage an antag, I had merely been acting on behalf of my fellow miner's well being which is expressly permitted in the very writing of the rule itself. I did not and nor will I ever validhunt, and while I respect Shockpoint's response time and desire to enforce the rules I believe he is incorrect in his assessment of the situation and would like to have the warning on my account removed.
-
Just now, Tayswift said:
The government ALREADY places limits on free speech. Go read what I wrote. And read what I wrote about body count. Hitler was STOPPED so he couldn't finish his genocide. It's not a fucking controlled experiment so stop using the numbers. Look at WHY and HOW they were doing the killing. History is a lot more nuanced than k/d ratio.
Again not arguing about a k/d ratio, merely stating how killing one political opponent isn't the same as millions. If you can't understand that I don't know what to say to you. Also yes I know they do, which I am against and you are for. Again you haven't explained how it's okay for a government to use the threat of violence to control what people say.
-
3 minutes ago, Tayswift said:
So your reason that Stalin and Mao are worse is because...why? I don't see any reasoning in your post for why they're worse, besides that the purges were way more evil? I mean come on, systematically wiping out people by sticking them in ovens has gotta be more diabolical than killing your political opponents, which everyone from Robbespiere to Brutus did. That's standard operating procedure for despots. Hitler not only did that, he also wiped out populations he thought didn't deserve to live, and would've gone on to do that to the whole world if he could've.
Believing in political superiority is not the same as racial superiority. The Republicans believe their political ideology is superior to the Democrats. Does that make them bad people? Not by itself. And your final argument is that...rights are rights? I'm not against freedom of speech.
Hate crimes aren't that hard to prove, actually. Figuring out a motive isn't a "thought crime", and it's often obvious when hate crimes are committed. Having a motive of hate is no different from any other motive. For example, this horrific crime.
If you're arguing that the government should make it illegal to say certain things you very much are against free speech. Furthermore there is a profound difference between killing a political rival and mass murder. Brutus didn't stab 40 million people, even then murder is still wrong. Didn't think I'd have to be arguing as to the ethics of killing people but here I am. Once again, please tell me why a government should have the right to imprison someone for saying something they disagree with.
-
4 minutes ago, Vivalas said:
Just want to chime in that the notion of Hitler being literally the most evil person in existence while nobody cares at all about any form endearment for Stalin or Mao is perhaps one of the most glaring inconsistencies of modern society and one of my biggest peeves.
After reading Lenin's Tomb (a very good book about reform / collapse of the USSR), I think Stalin is a million times worse in all capacities than Hitler. Compared to Stalin, Hitler is nothing. The purges were way worse, way more evil, and so much more random than the Holocaust.
And before you call me a neo-Nazi, no, I don't think the Holocaust is okay in any regards. I just think the fact that people can openly express allegiance to Mao / Stalin and the "good" of their regimes and be only chuckled at, while people are imprisoned for making jokes about Hitler and Nazis.... is just so glaringly stupid, for lack of a better word.
The notion that it is okay to imprison people for "hate crimes" in the first place is absurd. The name of "hate crime" is already paradoxical in a legal context. How do you intend to prove that a suspect, say, hates a particular group of people due to an action they performed, while they could have done it for other reasons, say comedy. Conversely, how do you intend to prove without reasonable doubt that a suspect does not hate a group of people because of an action they performed. And further more even if you can bring forth circumstantial evidence that proves a suspect has "hatred" towards a group of people (say, for example, they possess a Mein Kampf and other Nazi paraphernalia), why is such a thing illegal to begin with? Why are you not allowed to have your own opinions and beliefs if you are not harming anyone? It's right up there in stupidity with the ideas of prohibiting substances such as drugs and alcohol. "Hate crimes" are just an extension of the State's natural desire to suppress free thought. Totalitarian tendencies are ever-present in even the most gleaming and happy of democratic utopias. If you allow the state to define what is okay and not okay to hate, you are allowing them to define, by extension, what it is okay and not okay to think, which is very frightening.
And people wonder why a significant percentage of Americans are adverse to the idea of gun control.... (don't want to open that bag of worms, mind you, although I feel like this thread would have gone that path anyways eventually.)
Put way better than I ever could, the people must decide for the state and not the other way around.
-
13 minutes ago, Tayswift said:
Mao didn't starve his people on purpose. And yes, Stalin did intentionally starve Ukraine, and that does fall under the definition of genocide. However, that genocide was incidental to his politics. Stalin starved Ukraine as political retaliation. A person today who is a Stalinist doesn't believe Ukrainians all need to die. A person today who is a Nazi believes in their own racial superiority and in the extermination of everyone else. And that's why they're not the same thing.
The fire example is not a false equivalency. It's meant to show that there are limits on free speech. Setting the line at Nazism, as we've shown, still allows plenty of pretty bad things to be said. But the advocating of Nazi ideology is inherently dehumanizing violence, and that's why there's been restrictions on it for decades in Europe.
You're right, a Stalinist doesn't believe in racial superiority and won't kill for it, however they do believe on political superiority and will kill for that. Again, doesn't justify the deaths of millions or make it any less worse. As for Mao not purposefully starving people, doubtful. He enacting policies he knew would have ramifications leading to the starvation of at least twenty million possibly many more. Again you have yet to show how all that is somehow acceptable and should be allowed to be spoken of whilst Nazism is too far.
There is no limit on free speech, my whole point is arguing about government involvement on what people are allowed to say and how it is unethical and you present me examples of state limiting free speech. Rights are rights even if laws are passed against them, end of story.
-
35 minutes ago, Tayswift said:
Killing your political opponents isn't genocide. If that was genocide, then pretty much any war counts as genocide. I'm not condoning the killing of your political opponents, it's just that killing people because they're not part of the ubermensch is on an entirely different level of moral despicability.
It's like the difference between killing someone for their race and killing someone out of rage. Both involve the death of one person, and are shitty things to do, but the former is punished worse for being a hate crime. Because killing someone for their race indicates that you don't view ANYONE of that race as having the right to live, and that if you had the power to do so, you would kill ALL people of that race. Likewise, if the Nazis had their way, they would have killed and enslaved all non-"Aryan" people.
I've no idea where you got your definition, but 'The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"'. Killing someone for who they are as opposed to what their political faction or class is, is genocide. Stalin purged to keep his party strong, not because he believed an entire group of people didn't deserve to live because of how they were born. Believe it or not, purges are not an intrinsic part of Stalinism and Maoism, but simply part of its execution. Just like how genocide wasn't part of the US constitution, but Andrew Jackson and others still decided to genocide the Native Americans.
There is a difference between the two, and it doesn't help you to say "Nazism isn't so bad!" by pointing to Stalin and Mao. I think your arguments about radical free speech are stronger, but as even the US Supreme Court established, there are limits to free speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I, like Europe, am of the opinion that advocating for Nazism is comparable to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. By unequivocally advocating for the extinction of peoples other than their own, Nazism is an existential threat to society that must be given no room, or we end up with the Holocaust.
Again you're presenting a flawed argument that seems to confuse the position I'm arguing from. I believe mass murder of millions to be unacceptable no matter the term attached to it or reasons for it. I do not wish to play "Who was worse?" with you, killing people is wrong whether you do it for ethnic cleansing or political reasons.
As for the definition Merriam-Webster was my source, though if you would like to use the UN definition so be it. Would you disagree the killing and exile of different nationalities under Stalin was not genocide? Culturally and racially he purged those deemed incompatible with his party including seven million Ukrainian citizens starved to death on purpose. Mao did the same, purposefully inacting policies dedicated to promoting the mass starvation of his people. Would you argue that is somehow better? That the reasoning innocent people are slaughtered isn't as bad because it was political and not racial? The argument of violence not being inherent in the system is a laughable one, forty million people are dead because of said parties so I'd argue that they have proven in practice that violence is certainly required.
I have never said "Nazism isn't so bad" and I very much doubt I ever will. I'm not here to examine which is the shiniest of two turds I am arguing that silencing political opinions and free speech is wrong no matter how shit your political view is. I merely brought it up to see if you would disavow and argue for Stalinism and Maoism to be silenced as well, which you have not. As for the "fire" matter, that's just a false equivalency and has no bearing on our discussion. If you believe that Nazism is bad then you're free to believe that, I'm right there with you. I am however against an authoritarian government usuing violence to control what others say and attempting to control how they perceive ideas.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Tayswift said:
I'm saying that characterizing Nazism as a "dark joke" or just an "offensive joke" is Holocaust trivialization. Europe has had anti-Nazi laws for a long time, and it's worked pretty great for them.
Defending Hitler with "Mao and Stalin killed more people" overlooks the fact that Maoism and Stalinism aren't philosphies about genocide. While gulaging/killing your political opponents isn't a good thing, it's not on the same level as genocide. Also, a lot of Mao's body count was from shitty policy that led to widespread starvation, not ethnic cleansing. Genghis Khan killed 10% of the Earth's population at the time, so by your logic of comparing raw body count, Hitler wasn't as bad as Genghis Khan. The key here is that if the Nazis had their way, they would've wiped out/enslaved everyone who wasn't part of their "master race".
Plenty of people have been killed in the support of capitalism, for example. Ever heard of the Chilean 9/11? That was when the US violently overthrew Chile's democratically elected socialist government and installed a military dictatorship in its place. In 1954, the US overthrew Gautemala's socialist government and installed a military dictatorship in its place, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans. Same story with Nicaragua, Iran, etc. So because capitalism has a large body count, does that mean Nancy Pelosi, who supports capitalism, is an evil person that's in the same category as Hitler? No. Not even remotely close.
When it comes down to it, you can be socialist, communist, or capitalist without supporting genocide. You cannot support Nazism without supporting genocide. That's the difference, not who "killed" more people.
Young people these days were lucky enough to be born in an era where Nazism is just a distant memory and a video game enemy. They can't grasp what made Nazism truly evil. Nothing compares to it, and simply comparing body counts is naive and not grounded in history.
Definition of genocide
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Maoism and Stalinism are based around the genocide of the bourgeoisie and all other political factions resulting in mass deaths as they require a one party system to function. To say it is not grounded in history is an insult to the hundreds of millions who have and continue to suffer under it. You seem to approach my reply as if I am the one trying to make political opinions illegal. I believe communists should have just as much freedom to speak as Nazis. If you truly believe genocide was wrong and the core of why Nazism must be banned you would denounce communism and argue for it to be banned as well, but you aren't. Make no mistake I am not arguing the superiority of political policies that support mass death I am merely saying that they all have a right to be heard and no state need get involved with the speech of its citizens. Personally, I support a political side that doesn't feel the need to murder and control what its people say or do.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Tayswift said:
No. Because the Nazi ideology is uniquely terrible and specifically oriented on the genocide of Jews and non-white people. To say that "Nazis are just another side!!1!" is a disservice to the people that fought to end Nazism, Holocaust survivors, and reality. Keep in mind I'm not saying that you should be thrown in jail for "dark jokes" or run of the mill edginess. Nazism is unique in that it's a political philosophy based in genocide and its followers actually ethnically cleansed over 11 million people.
To think that a few years ago, bringing up Nazis meant you lost an argument cause you were exaggerating the other side's evilness. Now we're debating whether Nazis should be protected. We've fallen a long way.
I am not arguing just Nazism needs to be protected, I am arguing all speech needs to be protected up to and including Nazism. Also wonderful how you think Maoism and Stalinism are fine consider they together rack up a body count of 40 million, maybe more. I must ask those in favor of such government overreach, what do you do when disagreeing with the government constitutes hate speech? To think you can prosecute a violent ideology yet grant mercy to others is cognitive dissonance at its finest. Also you very much did say he should be charged, bringing up how teaching a pug the Nazi Salute was more than a joke. Trying to argue from a moral high ground is a bit hard when you're advocating the government using the threat of violence against its citizens to silence view points and when making an edgy joke joke is justifiably met with jail time in your eyes. Nazism isn't to be protected but it very much seems to me you're arguing in favor of authoritarian policies.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Tayswift said:
Um, that's not what the article says at all?
Who would be against making fun of Nazis? This was full on holocaust trivialization and probably alt-right neo-nazi bullshit masquerading as "funny" and "memes". The internet is a huge recruiting and radicalization ground for the burgeoning neo-Nazi/alt-right movement, and a significant portion of it comes from "memes" and other edgy stuff that draws kids in.
Ignoring for a moment the rather absurd position you put forward where you somehow deem it acceptable for the state to imprison a man for a joke, you seemed to have entirely missed the point of the post which was to discuss the legal precedent put in place with this trial. Because of this the British Government has more power than ever to restrict the speech of its citizens. Addressing your argument I find it hilarious you seem to be against Nazis but for allowing the government to control what a citizen says and does whilst in their own home with their own property. I don't think a man teaching a pug is going to be recruiting anyone over to the Nazi Party. Also I have to wonder, will you be okay if it's someone being arrested for something else and they aren't a Nazi? What if a pug was taught to salute Mao or Stalin? Would you be alright with them being arrested as well?
-
44 minutes ago, Pawneax said:
@Mach
Wow...I mean what to even say besides thank you? This is seriously awesome and I absolutely love the style you chose for it.
-
1
-
-
As usual, totally awesome looking.
-
1
-
-
Holy damn that's amazing looking.
-
1
-
-
Hello everybody, this is your (least) favorite under achiever here Mach, I usually play as Andrew Hoxton. I tend to do a little bit of everything on station (albeit poorly) but you can usually find me doing engineering, Blueshield, medical, or mining. Glad to finally make an introduction, cheers!
-
3
-
Admin Complaint: Shockpoint
in Resolved
Posted
Yeah, this is completely fair and really all that I had wanted out of this situation. Thank you for your tact in dealing with this and also for allowing me to state my case.