Synikalle's unban request - interesting to read

[Ben.]

I found this very interesting...

I will add a few quotes...

Synikalle

Contrary to popular belief, the internet is not exempt from these laws unless the server is private. By announcing your server in San Andreas Multiplayer client you are acknowledging that this server is now within the public domain to be used by the public, and by refusing an unban and without insisting this administrator refrain from such ban's in future would you leave yourself vulnerable to legal action.

Basically, the server is public, and therefore must follow international law. The internet is mass media, as you will see later in this post, so Synikalle is in fact, right.

StrikeFreedom

That argument does no apply here. The location of the server has nothing to do with the rules and guidelines within the game. The only thing that is affected by law are those files stored on the server i.e the scripts.

Erm...see what I put above.

Yeah, whatever guys...anyway...
I was reading through all this stuff about international law: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
This is "Human Rights". Now let me include another quote from the unban request...

Synikalle

To refuse a member of the public access to a public server due to expressing their views and opinions in an appropriate manner (non violent, offensive etc) is against the law. I suggest you consult a solicitor if you believe I am wrong.

This guy, is in fact, right. I will post another link.... http://www.fipr.org/international.html

Now... the internet is covered by international law, as it is 'mass media', a global form of communication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media#Internet

The final link on here for now. Basically, this is Article 19 on the 'Human Rights' thing made by the UN. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19.

No threats were actually made towards the server, see reason for permanent ban:

Making threats to server: permanent denied.

All he did was point out the law, which this server, and all public servers, being a part of mass media, have to comply with. No threats were made, he was pointing out the law.

One last thing. This is a statutory law, not common law. No law you can find against this will be valid, as common law must give way to statutory law.

[Julio.]

Wasn't he talking about prosecuting the server?

Why should you unban someone like that?

[Ben.]

Wasn't he talking about prosecuting the server?

Why should you unban someone like that?

The reason for prosecution was the ban. Read the rest of the topic.

[StrikeFreedom]

Oh get real...

The server allows for free speech, as there is not any kind of script that stops you from expressiong your feelings or opinions in words. The server however has the right to set rules on what it deems acceptable language and expression, and take measures against anyone who breeches these rules.
It is the responsibility of every individual to follow the rules, or risk punishment. This responsibility does not limit the freedom of expression, it adds possible consequences to using that freedom.

[Gandalf]

You are correct that we can not refuse access to the server for anyone based on their views or beliefs, or expressing them in an appropriate and non-offensive manner.
And we have never done so.

The current two cases are Synikalle and Paolo_stracci, who both claim freedom of expression.
Regarding this I would first of all like to point to the quote StrikeFreedom made of my post, where it is explained that we do not limit the freedom of expression.

In the case of Paolo_Stracci, he has been warned multiple times for using a reference that we feel in inappropriate and offensive for our public. As he refused to comply, eventually he was banned.
His posting privileges were withdrawn after a number of offensive and tralling posts in respond to his denial. As he has been in similar situations before, he will not be allowed back for the forseeable future.

Synikalle is a different case. Contrary to what he claims, he was not banned for using the /b/ro expression in public chat. For this he received a kick as punishment, to which he replied by flaming an administrator. As such his ban had in so far to do with freedom of expression that he used offensive language to express the feeling he was kicked inappropriate.

His denial is based on his attitude where he does not only misrepresent his case, but also seems intent of using legal prosecution in order to regain access. We have not withdrawn his posting rights, as he has been non-offensive and appropriate in his posts.
As for server access, once he understands that we are not responsive to legal or other threats and have the right to set rules that add consequences to whatever someone wishes to express, we can discuss a return in game. Until that time we have to protect the server from possible attempts to misuse freedom of expression for targets not related to gameplay, which is our perogative.

[Julio.]

Up until the point Synikalle started mentioning law, I thought he was going to get unbanned by yours and his attitude

[Gandalf]

Up until the point Synikalle started mentioning law, I thought he was going to get unbanned by yours and his attitude

As I told him, he would have been unbanned today, as yesterday I did not have time to run trhough the unban requests. However some people are impatient.

[Ben.]

My concern is not with what he was banned for by StrikeFreedom, the ban was valid as far as I am concerned. Fair play, he did "Shit on admins", and his screenshots only confirm that. Just, in Synikelles opinion, StrikeFreedom over-reacted.

My issue was with his permanent ban for threatening the server.
He did not threaten the server by his posts, he only pointed out what he thought was correct by law. This was why I posted the link regarding 'Human Rights' and Article 19. He had the right to post his beliefs about the law on his unban request, and was not threatening, as he put.
He put "If anyone would wish..." and at no point did he say he was going to do anything against the server.
This is what I was objecting to. I apologise if the topic presented itself in an incorrect way, I meant nothing against the ban, only the permanent denial.

As I told him, he would have been unbanned today, as yesterday I did not have time to run trhough the unban requests. However some people are impatient.

Have to agree with you on that one 

[Julio.]

However some people are impatient.

Remind you of anyone? :devroll: Cannot be me, surely not  :evil:

[Jamal]

So your saying we should be allowed to threaten the server? noany.. 'im going to hack your fking server!' 'Oh well okay your unbanned'

[Ben.]

So your saying we should be allowed to threaten the server? noany.. 'im going to hack your fking server!' 'Oh well okay your unbanned'

I guessed you were going to reply, post hunter...
At no point did I say that, and no threats were made, so unless you have something intelligent to say, please leave the topic.

[dtlove]

Threat's towards the servers (such as hacking) can be taken to court, as Gandalf and Aragorn pay/rent these servers, they are legal obliged to take legal action against hackers...or if they do not, the host can. So if someone is banned for 'Bullshitting' or whatever then claims he was denied freedom of speech, then makes threats towards the server, then tries to go to court over the whole freedom of speech matter....theres shit going down.

I run a small web host, in our terms, we state that we will take people to court or charge them if they make threats towards my staff / servers, Gandalf and Aragorn are, in theory, allowed to do the same. As long as it is stated in a legal document.

[Ben.]

Threat's towards the servers (such as hacking) can be taken to court, as Gandalf and Aragorn pay/rent these servers, they are legal obliged to take legal action against hackers...or if they do not, the host can. So if someone is banned for 'Bullshitting' or whatever then claims he was denied freedom of speech, then makes threats towards the server, then tries to go to court over the whole freedom of speech matter....theres shit going down.

I run a small web host, in our terms, we state that we will take people to court or charge them if they make threats towards my staff / servers, Gandalf and Aragorn are, in theory, allowed to do the same. As long as it is stated in a legal document.

I'm not talking about the original ban. As I stated earlier, it is about the permanent denial from the unban request.
No threats were made, I do not personally see hacks being mentioned anywhere on his topic, nor this, apart from Jamal's response. Synikalle was not correct about the ban, but was by accident, correct about something which happened afterwards.
He has every right to talk about law, and has the right to take the owners to court. It is like the argument about the man who stole someones jewellery, and sued the property owners when he injured himself climbing down the drainpipe  . He would not succeed with his court case, but he has every right to make it. Therefore, no undue threats were being made 

[Ragdoll]

Gotta be CO here.

SA-MP is a game. Servers owners have the right to ban whoever they want and why the want. Period.

This ^.

Because... well... nothing should be said, it's already crystal clear as it is.

[Ben.]

Gotta be CO here.

SA-MP is a game. Servers owners have the right to ban whoever they want and why the want. Period.

CO? Commanding Officer?

anyway...If you had actually read the posts in this topic, you will see that more than once, I have specified that I was not talking about the ban.

I'm not talking about the original ban. As I stated earlier, it is about the permanent denial from the unban request.

and...

My concern is not with what he was banned for by StrikeFreedom, the ban was valid as far as I am concerned. Fair play, he did "Shit on admins", and his screenshots only confirm that.
My issue was with his permanent ban for threatening the server.
He did not threaten the server by his posts, he only pointed out what he thought was correct by law.

You are correct in what you have put, but I am not wrong, as you implied that I was. I have clearly put that I am talking about the permanent denial, not the ban. Please read posts on a topic before posting. It has been mentioned to various people, in many different topics, but still people do not read them. Period.