Maxwell Edison wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 12:23pm:

I try to address each situation individually.  I think you can tell that I had some fun with this one, so I think there's a good chance that I may reuse it for any future ITGs.  So in that sense, you could say it applies to all.  Of course, you have to remember that for Oak to get to this point, he had to show a sustained pattern of behavior.  It's not like he just started running around in his leather jacket this week, he's been doing this for several months.  The same would have to apply for anyone else.

Invelios wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:35pm:

Anyone.  Present your case(s).

You present the case for yourself in this thread, Stainer does the same in this thread and the AOK stuff not to mention the Kist. shit.

And the P&R forums were made for this game.

stainer wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:43pm:



Probably, but if he is pointing out people for being dicks online, you are the number one contender

Not that it isn't fucking funny, but I don't mind Oak's shtick either.

I just think if someone in a position of power is going to present a punitive effect they need to enforce it unilaterally.

Invelios wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:44pm:

You know the established format.  Go get a shitload of quotes and show ITG behavior that is sustained over time, then add a photoshopped image at the end.

If you want to bring forth a case, then do your legwork, counselor.  If you do, we'll give the accused an opportunity to present their case and/or own up to their alleged behavior.  Inkblack will be the judge.  If a jury trial is requested, a jury will be formed.  We'll call witnesses, experts, and I'm sure there will be plenty of objections.  We might even have to sequester the jury.

But first, you must form a case that amounts to more than a drunken accusation. 

Invelios wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:56pm:

Hire a lawyer and/or computer geek.  I suspect there may be a few willing to work for free.

Invelios wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:59pm:

So your case never makes it to court.  Maybe someone else will bring one forth.

Strakeln wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:01pm:



Just a quick question, who ruled in your crusade against Oak?

or was that a dicktator move? If I remember correctly the only moderation on the vault was social, except in extreme instances.

ZeroBoost wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:09pm:


Not so much. You need a critical mass. One person gets shouted down if they are not backed by enough people. Trust me, I spend a lot of time in P&R.

Invelios wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:06pm:

I did.  I could be the judge in cases presented against me as well, but I figured you wouldn't want that.

Invelios wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:06pm:

Read the rules.

Strakeln wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:11pm:


Or I could stay and tell you that you're a fuckwit. I note you didn't answer the question, though.

Strakeln wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:24pm:


You need to give credit for that excellent guide.

stainer wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:25pm:

I debated on that.  I actually wrote "a little guide stainer threw together for you" at first but didn't want you to be inadvertently caught in the crosshairs of blubbering betty over there.  Never get between a mama bear and the anus of her favorite oak tree.

Then I tried saying "thanks stainer!" but that seemed to have the same potential.

So, thanks for the excellent guide for grace that you created long before this thread and had nothing to do with grace upon creation.