The Kingdom of the Emerald Hills

It seems there are many different kinds of bullies. Some in the schoolyard and some on the internet.

The internet affords those who would not normally act out in real life the opportunity to do it in relative safety behind distance and anonymity.

I give Finn credit for disposing of the first level of internet cowardice--anonymity. I have a memory of your face, Finn. So I know who you are.

What the internet bully is not protected from is intellectual retaliation. The distance that the internet my afford you will protect you from personal space issues, but not from the words you are trying to squealch by running to the admin everytime someone tells you to stuff it.

Finn thinks he can intimidate with latin words and tattling to the admin. So I call him on his BS. Finn you said the following:






Please report the event at which I assaulted you and please link to the post where I behaved uncivvilly in the General Amtgard Forum.

These are two falsehoods that color my character on these public forums. Please provide proof for either and I will apologize for them.

If you cannot, I request that you apologize to me in these same forums.

_________________
'Cause we're Corsairs...

I did not say that you assaulted me. I said that IF we took as a premise YOUR proposition that Reeves have no authority outside of formal battlegames, such as on the road at Tanglewood - and extrapolated from that - that the inevitable conclusion OF YOUR PREMISE would be that on the road at Tanglewood is outside of the game of Amtgard, and thus hitting me with an amtgard-legal weapon while on the road legally constitutes assault. I extrapolated this in order to illustrate why YOU did NOT want to argue that reeves do not have a responsibility to the safety of participants while they are at an Amtgard event. I am sorry - I made that as plain as possible, and I am sorry that you misread my words.

I am not responsible for teaching you manners. I invested a large amount of time learning them, they and my time are of value to me. It is apparent to me where you were uncivil - you recommended that I stick to NERO and tabletop RPG, or words to that effect. You also said "sack up, man - this is the internet", in defense of the uncivil actions of others. Civility means that if you cannot contribute materially to the discussion, you not disparage those in the discussion.

I am sorry that you are unable to follow the argument that I have outlined in these forums, and I am sorry that your only response to date is to celebrate bringing me indignity and ridicule.

Finn: "I did not say that you assaulted me."


"I am certain you do not wish to argue that several years ago you assaulted me at Tanglewood Forest. Several of your fellow company members have chased me and thwapped me with Amtgard -legal boffer weapons on Company Road while I was making announcements on behalf of Kingdom Officers. I am certain that you do not wish to argue that they have committed assault on my person at Tanglewood Forest."

That is the good thing about print, we can go back and reference it.

Strike one, Finn.

I will grant you two more tries before I write you off as an internet bully without the moral character to stand by your claims.

Edited to add:

Even if I were to agree that the semantic wrangling of your proposed hypothetical circumstances regarding your cited incident, you have not shown beyond your initial claim that it was me weilding the boffer.

_________________
'Cause we're Corsairs...

Reeves are responsible for "In game" safety. As in during a battle game or quest. they are NOT responsible for safety as we intend when we discuss security at an event. RL security is noted in the corpora and who is in charge of it. Please read the document before continuing your claims about reeves.

Also, in response to the locked thread, yuo are unwilling, not unable to participate. Unable would mean that either a. We are not permitting you to play, or B. You have a physical condition which does not allow you to play. enither of these is true. Based on your perception of events, you are choosing not to participate. Which is your option.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)

My discussion on this subject with both Forest and Corbin is at an end.

Corbin - I am not responsible for your misunderstanding of the situation, your misunderstanding of all the facts, your misunderstanding of how to treat someone civilly. I fail to understand how you can misread "You do not wish to argue that you assaulted me".

I have already corrected you, Forest, as to how your assertion is wrong. I am willing to participate. I am unable to do so, and am at the mercy of the officers, B.O.D., and to some extent the populace. You do not have all the facts, and I am not at liberty to discuss it with you. You are also ignorant of all the qualifiers. I am not responsible for teaching you those. You have a long history of ridiculing and disrespecting me - it continues, I did not expect otherwise.

I am not involved in Amtgard to be personally abused nor ridiculed.

edit! oops

Sirs Forest and Scytale,

Please do not thread jack this. I would like for Finn to either put up or shut up.

Please start another thread to discuss "in game" and "out of game."

Finn - Strike two.

So far you have not referenced me being uncivil nor have you proven that I was weilding the boffer swords that assaulted you on company road.

_________________
'Cause we're Corsairs...

Sorry Corbin, last post.

Finn, please point out how my post is ridiculing or disrespecting you? Again i state that to be ubnable, means that it is not physically possible. This is not the case. I do have all the facts in the story. You have made a choice not to participate because you were not satisfied with the answers you received to your complaint.

Rant about it if you must, but the audience has long since stopped listening. I am just trying one last time to help you see the absurdity of stating you are "unable" to play in the eyes of those who read your posts.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)

You are clenched upon the notion that I have accused you of assault. I have done no such thing. I have demonstrated to you that YOUR premise, taken to its' logical conclusion, would have made what you did - or what your company members did - or ANY foam combat at an Amtgard event outside of a battlegame - /technically, legally assault/ because it would not be covered by the rules.

Perhaps it would help if you read, and quoted, and referenced the /entirety/ of what I wrote, instead of picking and choosing only what you wished to see. Exegesise, do not eisegesise.

"If people simply walking down the road does not fall under the auspices of the Rules of Play [edit: This is YOUR premise, Corbin - not mine], then you stabbing me on the road outside of the time of a battlegame with an Amtgard boffer weapon because I was enthusing about several Nel'Fray roleplaying - doubtless because you were annoyed by my 'flurby' behaviour - would then constitute assault. I am certain you do not wish to argue that several years ago you assaulted me at Tanglewood Forest."


"Several of your fellow company members have chased me and thwapped me with Amtgard -legal boffer weapons on Company Road while I was making announcements on behalf of Kingdom Officers. I am certain that you do not wish to argue that they have committed assault on my person at Tanglewood Forest. "

IF, THEN. Your premise. An actual situation that could just as easily be hypothetical. /reductio ad absurdum/ of your argument. Two separate illustrations of the same.

I am not responsible for teaching you debate. I am not responsible for teaching you logic. I will, however, point out that you have constructed a strawman out of YOUR misreading of my statements. Your strawman is not my problem, and not my responsibility - despite your insistences.

I took your premise - that reeves are not expected to have authority on roads or campsites, outside of battlegames - and demonstrated to you why your premise is not only a bad idea rules-wise and safety-wise and with regards to the law, but does not jive with the reality of how the game is played and is a bad policy period. These are not my whims - they are the logical results of YOUR premise. If you do not like the logical and legal results of YOUR premise and policy, YOU should change YOUR mind. I am not responsible for your inability to arrive at these conclusions yourself. I am not responsible for your inability to follow a written logical argument.

YOU were unable to make a /logos/ argument that directly adresses or disproves the argument that the Corpora makes Reeve-qualified individuals responsible for the safety of participants and bystanders during games, and that since Amtgard is a roleplaying game, wherever roleplaying is likely to happen is "in-game". I made my argument. It stands. You disagree with it. You have been unable to construct an answer to that argument.

Instead, you have chosen to make an /ethos/ argument, and really not even that - you have chosen to construct a strawman of your own devising from your misunderstanding of my words, and use that as the basis of an /ad hominem/ attack on my person. I am not only unconcerned, but am actually quite amused. I'm certain that you must be able to have a minimum comprehension of the English language.

I have a vague impression that you graduated university with an arts and science degree. How does someone with such credentials come to a point in their life where they are incapable of not only following a simple (yes, this is in fact a very simple argument) argument - but are incapable of properly constructing an answer - in the same mode and with the same manner and method - to the original argument?

How does Forest, who I KNOW has an arts and sciences degree and I KNOW is capable of following a simple argument and of mastering debate, find himself unable to follow this?

Do you think that attacking my person or credibility is necessary? Hello?!?! I'm the "biggest laughing stock in Amtgard" - yoni hamagid "Biggest joke ever" - forest evergreen "finn, no one listens to you when you talk" - roughly 60% of the online populace of Amtgard.

I have zero personal authority. I have no titles, no degrees, and no awards since 1998. I am a pariah. I am shunned. Few people are willing to stand up for me and it takes three changes of office to address a problem that I experienced that should have been addressed in five minutes because (maybe?) the previous two monarchs personally dislike me. Nothing I advocate for is ever granted by whim - it must be eked out because people resist change, and avoid consulting logical arguments and reasoning, and generally /do the opposite of whatever I point out is necessary/.

Attacking my /ethos/ is /incredibly/ amateur. You cannot succeed in getting the populace of Amtgard to like me any less than they already do.

The /pathos/ angle is similarly out of the question. I frankly do not care that inconvenient truths hurt your feelings and damage your conception of what you think Amtgard is. You're in it as a sport. Wicked for you. You do not get to deny that it is first and foremost a roleplaying game that hosts sporting events. The audience of your rant - duo corsair, Forest, feytakin, etcetera - i'm certain are quite amused to see yet another person they look up to step up to "bash Finn". Wicked for you. You probably all think that you've succeeded too. Wicked for you.

Quitcher bitchin and pick up a book. And an absentee ballot for two weeks from now. Since you'll do the opposite of whatever I point out is necessary, I ought to say "Don't get an education! Do vote republican!" but really, I think that the capability to appreciate irony is beyond people who cannot comprehend a simple argument. ZOMG I use greek and latin! I should be ashamed of my education and intellect! *sob* Jocks win again!

Now, if you 'gentlemen' - you both wear white belts, so you're both gentlemen, right?

If you 'gentlemen' will excuse me, I'm going to go back to teaching myself Mandarin Chinese and worrying about the collapse of the Rule of Law in my home country and pondering the basis of that collapse - hm. Pandering lowbrow politics. Lack of understanding of the issues. Undereducated and misinformed populace. Populace unconcerned about the legal implications fo their government's policies. Lack of understanding and appreciation of the norms of civilisation.

Maybe I have better things to do with my time than to do your homework for you and be thankless for it, eh?

Interesting hypothesis. Will you elaborate?

Once again, you are missing the point.

I am not arguing in this instance whether or not combat taking place on company road constitutes assault.

You claim that you were struck (and then chased) on company road. Further, you claim I did this to you.

I dispute this and demand you prove it was me.

Further, you claim that I debate without civility. Please reference a post where I have been uncivil.

Doing either of the above would have given you an apology from me here on this board.

I expected an apology from you, who espouse such and such civility, in the case that you could not.

After three chances it has become obvious that your claims are false, by what design I can only image.

I now label you what you are, an internet bully, happy to use big words to frighten what you perceive as being an uneducated Amtgard populace and ready to tattle to the admin when someone tells you your feces dost waft foul.

_________________
'Cause we're Corsairs...

The end of this ridiculous abuse of me on your part.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. It is reasonable to assume that there is an excellent chance that you and I engaged in boffer combat on company road at some point, in boffer combat on the circular road. The extraordinary claim is that such a thing /could not/ have happened. Yours is the extraordinary claim. Yours is the burden of proof. Good luck trying to prove a vacant assertion. You don't understand that, but then again you don't understand most of what's going on here or else you just take a malicious glee in foisting a feigned ignorance upon others. It is not civil to continuously miss the forest for the trees and to belabour your red herring, to beat your dead straw horse. Ignoranto elenchi non excusat. It is also uncivil to tell someone to "sack up, man - this is the internet" in defense of others' uncivil behaviour toward one that is discussing an important matter that one takes seriously. Again, ignorantio elenchi non excusat, et minatur innocentibus qui parcit nocentibus. Simply because you are unable to comprehend it doesn't mean my point is not correct. Stop sloughing the intellectual shots, Corbin, and sack up, man - debate is not your strong point. And in case you haven't noticed, what I have done here is anything but flight.

Honestly. Your attempt to bait me with your red herrings is appallingly amateur. I have no ethos to burn with the audience - you're burning yours like it was going out of style - which I guess for you it is.

Finn, I don't know you and you don't know me. I think it's better that way. The more you speak the more you prove yourself to be an idiot with illusions of grandeur. If you don't like amtgard for the way it is just stay away. It won't change for you no matter how impressive you think you can make your wagging tounge sound.

_________________
I have centuries to discover the things that make you whimper and millennia to make you enjoy them.