HukHukHuk, server #2, about 6:30am GMT+10, 18th of September

[Winterous]

You completely ignored what the laws actually mean and are trying to ruleslawyer your way out if it, and doing so in the context of an admin complaint thread.

I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything, this is how I THINK, just because it seems intuitive to you doesn't mean it works the same way in other people's brains.
This exact reason is why the wiki page should further clarify the laws, I'd read the AI laws stuff the day before, and NOTHING I read lead me to believe that what I did in this instance was a violation of Law 1.

For all the bitching and complaining you do whenever admin craziness happens, you don't seem to apply that same standard of BEEP BOOP ALL RULES SHALL BE OBEYED COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION to yourself.

Oh come on, I was pissed off because you were fucking with me, I overreacted., I thought it was clear that put that behind us.

\you DID act to harm that player. You made a conscious decision to discontinue a rescue effort. If you hadn't started, well, I still would have bitched you out, but that would have been another matter. You acted by changing what you were doing specifically to harm a human.

Again, you're saying it's so clear-cut, but it really isn't that clear; if that's what the admins as a group believe to be the intention of the law then please, put it in the wiki page so this confusion doesn't happen.

Why why would you have bitched me out if I just straight up refused to assist him? The harm prevention clause isn't in Law 1 anymore, and to clarify: No action I took put him in the harmful situation in the first place.


Furthermore you'll note that my original post is not "bitching and complaining" I'm not crying for Huk to be burnt at the stake, I've specifically gone out of my way to say that there ISN'T a need for punishment, and implied that that's because I recognise being an admin isn't easy and there's a lot of pressure and dealing with shitbags all the time might leave someone jaded.
I've called into question his judgement and his conduct, but not once was I rude or disrespectful (at least, I was actively trying to be as polite and civil as possible), and ultimately I recommended that the exact meaning of Law 1 is clarified to avoid these situations in future.

You say I'm ruleslawyering, and I am, but not because I choose to, it is my automatic, native thinking process; you consider it splitting hairs, but to me it's just normal processing of information and logical structure.
To punish me for that would be cruel and extremely inappropriate, and considering the very hard-line stance you guys take when it comes to racism and the like, rather hypocritical.