Strangely enough maybe yes, I think I want to see if I can beat you to the betrayal 
but I need you and others similar to you in understanding know that yes he broke it once, so fine. 7 day suspension or whatever the first option was. that does not preclude him from any further punishment if he breaks it again and again. on his second infraction, that would bring it up to a 30 day suspension. yet again, he decided to break it again in another way - should the preclude him from being punished again? well by the looks of the way CCP has it set up, the more infractions you break the stiffer the penalty. he went on to continue breaking the EULA. so now heâs reached the proverbial third strike. hence the perma ban.
Why do you need me to understand?
I understand why CCP have given him a permaban. I just donât agree with it. Move on.
Are you a lawyer in Serbia?
Did you read Article 6?
Are any of us qualified to actually conclude that a law was broken? We arenât, unless we can provide proof that we can offer a qualified opinion. Nothing any of us say in relation to laws being broken is relevant.
The EULA was broken. Thatâs enough.
Asks for proof and a source, gets provided.
Tried to go back because you find out you are wrong and look like an idiot
1 Like
there is law, and eula. law is something that CCP has no control over. it is different everywhere. the fact that in most of the civilized world his threats indicate a law is broken. the fact that he broke the eula umpteen times designates that he should receive the max penalty listed as what will happen if you break the eula. the legal part of it is up to the authorities. maybe in gigxâ country threats are not illegal, however if the laws in the judges country do infact state that such threats are illegal, the judge would infact be able to persue any avenue given to him by the rights of his citizenship to protect himself from any and all threats. the fact that gigx threatened him IRL whether as a joke or not isnât why CCP banned him. he broke the eula in many ways, so he gets the harshest punishment. if in fact he broke a law by threatening bodily harm, than I hope the authorities also deal with it accordingly
#bangigx4life
1 Like
Iâm pretty sure sending harassing messages from somewhere constitutes a criminal offense in its territory.
Donât be an idiot. It was a comment that was made in their game. Youâve agreed to their EULA and TOS upon playing. They have the right to police their rules as lax or strict as they see fit. Just stop.
1 Like
No, not at all. Even trying to provide a law is better than most.
But none of us are qualified to provide an opinion on the law.
I work with legislative frameworks (Australian law), not as a legal professional, but in a policy capacity, daily. The law isnât something that just anyone can comment on with any sense of authority, unless you are actually qualified and work in the relevant jurisdictions.
The whole âhe broke a lawâ angle is stupid, unless you can show a law that was broken. Those articles donât actually show that at all.
1 Like
Except, he did but youâre choosing to ignore it.
Pretty sure is what percentage?
You either know because you are qualified to offer a legal opinion, or you donât.
He broke the EULA. Thatâs enough. Thatâs all the requirement there for the punishment given.
Report a crime if you think a crime has been committed.
As you said threats are threats, and i give the prof to the CCP ppl and they did nothing. So i dont see the rules for all in here.
So if this guy gets a perma ban thats ok, but then i want to see all of the other ppl that threats perma ban to.
If this dosnt happend then its clearly the rules arent for all the player base
He didnât actually, but itâs pointless to discuss further (and actually asking for a legal clause was stupid of me. Relevant case law would be much more appropriate).
People think Iâm somehow trying to defend gigx or something, Iâm not.
He broke the EULA. He deserves to be punished. None of us are qualified to comment outside that, but go report a crime if you think one has been committed. It would be wrong of you not to.
1 Like
Unlawful Threats
What is a threat?
A threat is any communication indicating an intention to do harm. It can be communicated directly or indirectly either by words (whether written or spoken) or by conduct, or a combination of both [Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA) s19 (3)]. For example, driving a motor vehicle at high speed on the wrong side of the road and stopping just short of another car can constitute a threat [see South Australian Police v Bednarz (SASC, 17 February 1995, Jud No S4959, unreported)].
In determining whether words or actions constitute a threat there is a difference between an intention to cause harm, and someone who is merely âsounding offâ who does not intend to create any fear. For example a statement âI feel like I could kill my husbandâ could be interpreted as an expression of emotions, whereas âI want to kill my husbandâ is a threat to do harm.
The threat does not need to be directed at the person who heard it (see for example Carter v R (1994) 176 LSJS 112).
Threaten death
It is an offence if a person, without lawful excuse:
threatens to kill or endanger the life of another; and
intends to create a fear that the threat will be carried out, or is recklessly indifferent to whether such a fear was created.
Maximum penalty:
Basic offence: 10 years imprisonment
Aggravated offence: 12 years imprisonment is the maximum penalty.
Examples of aggravated offences include where the victim is a child or a spouse of the defendant, or where the offence was committed intending to prevent the victim from taking legal proceedings.
[s 19(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)]
Threaten Harm
It is an offence where a person, without lawful excuse:
threatens to cause harm to another;
intending to create a fear that the threat will be carried out, or is recklessly indifferent to whether such a fear was created.
Maximum penalty:
Basic offence: 5 years imprisonment.
Aggravated offence: 7 years imprisonment.
[Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19(2)]
Iâm not a lawyer, but I can do research, iâmâ sure youll find these relating to the incident in question.
Can you read or are you really trying to continue on this âIâm involved in law therefore Iâm better than youâ crap, We have text and vocal communications of gigx asking for personal information and making direct physical threats to the judge, which is said in the article that draconic blade linked is valid.
1 Like
Yes I can read. But reading isnât a qualified interpretation.
I never claimed to be better than anyone. Thatâs just compete rubbish. Iâve said we are all equally incompetent on the matter, where it comes to law.
Space lawyering is dumb.
Space lawyering is dumb. Why is South Australian legislation relevant here?
Thatâs just ridiculous. Melbourne isnât in South Australia. Additionally, a consolidated Act from 1935 wouldnât include issues around messages transmitted on the internet.
werâe not lawyering about space, ccp has taken care of that with the #bangigx4life. the whole thing werâe lawyering is a real world thing where in fact he did break the laws of his country if it is austrailia
1 Like
Weâre past being space lawyers, son, weâre to the point of pointing out that someone like yourself should understand the situation in that his threats were threats, made across multiple platforms and match the very writing of the law provided. You call yourself an expert in law, but you seem to be ignoring the job that you claim to do.
1 Like
that is just a citation used to reference precedent. I thought you worked in law?
1 Like