Shattered Kingdoms

Zing.

[REMOVED]

Hey, if you wanted to keep that finger you would have said so to begin with or learned to punch harder.

Ironically Yagher was responsible for one and Jager for the other. Wow.

I don't mix music and MUD personally, but upon considering --

Song for Marfik's flock: Spy vs. Spy - Hooligan (apologies for the ads)

Any diabolic character's theme: Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - Red Right Hand

Oh come on, mine wasn't worse than his.

I see we're going back to the ol' favouritism days I did so adore.

Yeah, I didn't see anything wrong with your post.






<----waits for someone to get the irony

Did you mean to post this somewhere else? :o

I saw the original post when it was PM'd to Alshain and myself with a complaint about it being explicit. While the content of your twisted quote was factually accurate, other people don't know the history and were offended by it. For that matter, the original event also offended people and is one of the things that prompted the introduction of the Terms of Service. Your comment could also be construed as violating the Terms of Service, so be happy it was only removed.

Jeez, now who sounds like they have 'lawyer training'. Looking through the ToS though, I can only assume you refer to s5(b) of the terms:



Looking through that in detail, the content is not unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, or hateful, so let's get those out of the way right now. That leaves us with 'harmful', 'obscene', and 'otherwise objectionable'.

Looking at the ordinary definitions of those three words:



Rape is an abominable thing, it's true. It's all of the above (except number two). Discussing an RP that occured which included rape, I would suggest, is not.



Was what I said, a one-line throwaway comment, and moreover a discussion of an RP, capable of causing harm? Is it injurious? I would imagine that any reasonable adult would not be harmed by mention of the word 'rape', especially in the vague manner I used it. I note that your ToS states in s2(b) that people agreeing to the ToS must be at least 18 years of age. I note that the mud itself includes recuring themes such as cannibalism and murder, and must therefore conclude that the reasonable person is equally equipped to deal with what I mentioned.



Here's the clincher. I assume that this 'otherwise objectionable' clause is what you were really getting at, and to be fair, what I wrote obviously did cause an objection - however ridiculous that objection was, and however cowardly that they didn't feel they could mention it aloud.

That being said, just about anything anybody writes is objectionable to some people in some manner. I could complain about any post and that post would immediately violate this part of the ToS. It'll be interesting to see what kind of interpretation this gets in future.

Why did I write all that? I find it interesting. If you don't, complain away.