Green server and "operating under legal permission"

[cd288]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can sum up everything you just wrote with a single word: pedantry. Look, I'm no lawyer, but if you actually read my original post I even said, explicitly, that A) the details matter, and B) even if a company forms an iron-clad contract, there are still ways of breaking said contract (eg. dissolving the company).

But none of that matters, because for one thing this place existed for years without a formal legal agreement, and for another none of us knows the details of the agreement (except Rogean). Any discussion of the details is just "armchair quarterbacking". So while nothing you said was strictly wrong, it also didn't add or change anything germane to the conversation (ie. it was pedantic).

Ultimately what actually matters are the specific terms of the contract that Rogean and Daybreak signed. And while you and I might not know those details, Rogean does.

So until someone gives me a reason to think otherwise, I'm going to go by:

Well, it did add something to the conversation, which was correcting your definitive statements about contracts, etc. which weren't accurate and therefore misinforming.

I wasn't trying to say the server is going to be shut down, just that I'm sure it would not be extremely difficult for Daybreak to do so. I would imagine if they did that Rogean could try to sue for breach (if he can pay the attorney's fees and court filings), but the damages there would probably just be compensating him for the money spent on server upkeep/maintenance and hardware over the years. Point being, I'm sure Daybreak could shut it down with relative ease and (if they did it in breach of contract) minimal damages; however, like I said in my post I doubt they would ever do so unless it got to the point where it was seriously harming their business (i.e. tens of thousands of subscribers). Right now, there's barely any population on P99 so they don't care, and probably hope that maybe it will lead people to join TLPs for various different reasons (deciding they want to play past Velious, re-discovering EQ but wishing they had a bit more QoL, etc.).

[Tenderizer]

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a very inadequate understanding of our legal system and how contracts work with companies and their ownerships.

OP I think you're going to need this.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Chortles Snort|eS]

Good lucK In shUt dowN EaSteSrn HaLas NationS ruN ServEr noDeS If it cAme to DaT
BiG lafF

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, it did add something to the conversation, which was correcting your definitive statements about contracts, etc. which weren't accurate and therefore misinforming

I used a specific word, with a specific meaning, and I think it flew over your head:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Definition of a "pedant"

one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge.

I was not writing a legal treatise! I was participating in a discussion (in a 20-year old elf sim forum) about why we don't (practically) need to worry about P99 going away.

You did "accurately correct" me ... or at least some tangential details of what I wrote ... but it was in a way that added nothing to the conversation at hand (because we weren't having a conversation on contract law). And it couldn't have been hard to find legal errors in my post, because again, I wasn't trying to write a legally accurate treatise. Everyone else here understood as much.

It's like if two people are having a conversation and one uses the word "literally" to mean "very", instead of "actually", so you interject and tell them that they're using the word wrong ... because you're an English genius and you know better and want to show off.

Except ... those two people were having their conversation just fine, and understood each other perfectly. Your interjection did nothing to improve or facilitate their conversation at all: it was just an excuse to show off your knowledge, at the expense of everyone listening.

[magusfire24]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Rang]

Epstein is still alive his death was faked.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I used a specific word, with a specific meaning, and I think it flew over your head:



I was not writing a legal treatise! I was participating in a discussion (in a 20-year old elf sim forum) about why we don't (practically) need to worry about P99 going away.

You did "accurately correct" me ... or at least some tangential details of what I wrote ... but it was in a way that added nothing to the conversation at hand (because we weren't having a conversation on contract law). And it couldn't have been hard to find legal errors in my post, because again, I wasn't trying to write a legally accurate treatise. Everyone else here understood as much.

It's like if two people are having a conversation and one uses the word "literally" to mean "very", instead of "actually", so you interject and tell them that they're using the word wrong ... because you're an English genius and you know better and want to show off.

Except ... those two people were having their conversation just fine, and understood each other perfectly. Your interjection did nothing to improve or facilitate their conversation at all: it was just an excuse to show off your knowledge, at the expense of everyone listening.

Actually, no. It wasn't an excuse to show off knowledge. Two people were in an argument and you were one of them. You were asserting something that was wrong to try and prove your point. I corrected you. Ergo, relevance.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, no. It wasn't an excuse to show off knowledge. Two people were in an argument and you were one of them. You were asserting something that was wrong to try and prove your point. I corrected you. Ergo, relevance.

And what was the false claim .. that was also important, significant, and germane to the discussion ... that you needed to correct, specifically?

(This forum has a quote function, and it should be super easy to use it to show the claim that I made.)

[Chortles Snort|eS]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can sum up everything you just wrote with a single word: pedantry. Look, I'm no lawyer,

I'm not a lawyer either, but that guy is a corporate attorney. Maybe he can post back and answer me a question. Cause you see I was wondering, if I own a piece of software that sends out signals, and I send those signals to a guy who puts them in a giant calculator and sends them back to me, how is copyright involved? Because the guy with that calculator, he built that himself. And the client software, I have a receipt for that.