Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Dispute between WG and Tsunami
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228165 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:20   |
jschultz9
Messages: 276
Registered: March 2005
Location: USA
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
but you guys made a deal that it goes to TA ... And they didnt forced you to give kamuix a box. You did it yourself. So if i watch from that point of few i think the nick belongs to TA...
|
Considering your a member of the renunderground team. Its no wonder your here to defend your leader.
But im not gonna bring members of {WG} here to argue my case. because I dont need them to. I know where I stand. That is that I did the right thing by letting Kam keep the box, making the payment for the box. Taking over the nick instead of going through all the shitof shutting the box down, making Kam move his files, and install everything on a new box.
Unlike fl00d3d, Im not gonna have guys from my community come run and argue a case they werent involved in.
irc.thewargrounds.com
#WG
www.thewargrounds.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228167 is a reply to message #228166] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:27 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 16:25 |
Unfortunately, missing the extra leg work is where his argument holds up.
Now, I agree that what you did, essentially, was the shortcut to what would have happened/will happen. Unfortunately, it's the "wrong" way of going about it.
Now, I'm sure people can understand why the average person is told to consult a lawyer before entering into a contract. Just based on what was posted here I've found numerous holes available to both sides.
|
That's what's annoying about law. Semantics are very very important. One small hole can ruin someone's argument whether or not they're morally correct. In the eyes of government, morality means nothing.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228169 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:36 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Oh, morality means something, as long as you go about it the right way.
(spoiler alert)
Had jshultz informed TA about him no longer officially supporting the use of the box by Kamiux for TA's benefit, but was going to keep it up due to the hardship that would have been placed on Kamiux to have to take everything down, only to put it back up again, things would be different.
Jshultz had no reason to keep the box up for TA, other than reasons of being nice (on of those holes I was talking about... nothing to prevent him from backing out), but technically the box involved in the agreement was still being used as part of the agreement, so simply walking away would not have done it.
But then, this is simply my opinion. Don't expect it to be a valid defense. I'm not a lawyer after all.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228170 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:40 |
jschultz9
Messages: 276
Registered: March 2005
Location: USA
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I kept the box online for Kam to amke things easy for him. I wasnt gonna put Kam in a bad way just to suit fl00d3d or anyone else. this wasnt Kams fault, therefore he shouldnt be punished for something he didnt do.
Thats my way of looking at it. If you dont like it, im sorry. Im not gonna punish Kam for renting a nick.
irc.thewargrounds.com
#WG
www.thewargrounds.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228172 is a reply to message #228170] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:45 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| jschultz9 wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 16:40 |
I kept the box online for Kam to amke things easy for him. I wasnt gonna put Kam in a bad way just to suit fl00d3d or anyone else. this wasnt Kams fault, therefore he shouldnt be punished for something he didnt do.
Thats my way of looking at it. If you dont like it, im sorry. Im not gonna punish Kam for renting a nick.
|
We don't think what you've done is morally wrong. However, in the eyes of law, what you did was just keep the agreement between TA and Kamuix valid. In order for it to have been voided, you would have had to let it "hurt" Kamuix for a short period of time. Hell, even one minute probably would be sufficient, if you didn't have any agreements as to how long the box could be down for until it voided the contract.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228174 is a reply to message #228148] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:54 |
fl00d3d
Messages: 1107
Registered: August 2003
Location: Iowa, USA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| jschultz9 wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 15:23 |
in order for it to be TSU nick, they have to pay for the box. Which fl00ded didnt do. I pay for the box, I was being nice trying to help fl00d3d out.
I will not turn this into a flame fest like it did with matix, Fl00d3d you can pull are your little TSU guys in ehre flame me all you like, Threaten to make me look bad by Sending me PMS on here.
I DO NOT CARE. You want the nick 04 so bad? You used me to get it from matix. It just didnt work out the way you wanted it to. Now your pissed.
Get over it. I broke no Rules what so ever. Theres no LEGAL binding Contract between you and Kam. Theres a deal, a box for a nick. I own the box, he owns the nick. Plain and simple. I was being nice trying to help you out.
| Quote: |
I never did you wrong and you fucking know it. I reccommend you get your ass on MSN and explain what the hell all of this is about before it makes you look bad. I never made the post I intended to make because I got a hold of Crimson and I was trying to deal with it silently. I've been asking you for days if something was wrong and you said no. Now I found out that was a lie and you're backstabbing me by stealing Tsunami's property. This will not turn out pretty for you if you're trying to make a run for it. Trust me. I gave you my trust and now you're spitting on it just like the little kid "matix". YOU are the one that is no different. You need to speak with me liek I've been trying to do for the last couple of days, come clean, say what is on your mind, and do what is right. The nickname is property of Tsunami. Crimson witnessed that. And we will hold our end of the bargain. But since you gave us NO warning, you pressured Kamuix into working with you -- and everyone sees that. It will all be cleared up very soon...
|
Your little PM doesnt worry me fl00d3d. Like I said fl;ame me all you like, Bring up the past. I dont give a shit.
| Quote: |
Today, I wake up to find that Justin told Kamuix to reset the password so
that he could use it on his server -- or he'd shut down the box he gave
him. So now 04 is running on {WG}The Wargrounds AOW/CCM.
|
I never once gave kam an option of that sort
I simply spoke with him, told him the situation and had him reset the password for the server.
The owner of the nick, changed the password and handed me the nick in trade for the box I gave him. So where u stand in this situation is nowhere fl00d3d.
|
Wrong again. As Crimson will verify ... the agreement was between Kamuix and Tsunami. NEVER were you involved other than you volunteering to give Kamuix your box in exchange for us hosting your server and the E nick. Which you did get. What you should have done is told us that you were not happy with something, and given us a chance to give Kamuix the box we promised him. That was the agreement and I still intend to stand by it ... even though you put Kamuix in a poor situation ... we will make this situation right. The nick was given to Tsunami in exchange for a box which you so kindly volunteered to pay for. And now you're taking it back so that you can pressure Kamuix into giving YOU the nick. But what you do not realize is, the agreement which was witness by a XWIS administrator is between Tsunami-Alliance and Kamuix. Not you.
I have proven to Crimson that the deal was between our community and Kamuix. I have proven to Crimson that you offered to give him your server that you already had paid for and up and running to 'help us out'. And that all you wanted in return was the E nickname and a 28 player server - which you got. If you decided that you weren't happy with something, the adult thing to do would be to tell "Tsunami" and give them time to find Kamuix a new box since you didn't want to offer yours anymore. Instead you saw an oppportunity to exploit Kamuix.
No one is dumb here. And I also offered you numerous changes to discuss this with me privately on MSN before and after all of "this" happened and you refused. I think we both know why ... thief.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228175 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:55 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
That may be, but as per the original argument that we were interceding on,
| Quote: |
This nickname is property of my community and I am declaring it as STOLEN.
The original agreement is that the nick is property of Tsunami Alliance in
exchange for a server. Under NO circumstances was it said that if Justin
decided to pull his funding/box that the nick would become his. Nightma12
and I will provide Kamuix with a box since Justin has decided not to. But
that does NOT make the nickname his.
|
is still correct.
Edit: Fl00ded, if Kamuix is willing to accept the replacement box, then more power to you. You can keep the nick. If, however, he decided not to accept the replacement box (for whatever reason - nothing is forcing him), then the nick reverts back to him to deal with as he chooses.
[Updated on: Wed, 25 October 2006 13:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228177 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 14:03 |
jschultz9
Messages: 276
Registered: March 2005
Location: USA
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
well your whole deal with him is Void fl00d3d.
So your arguement is to. He doesnt ahve a box anymore. Im not gonna fight about it.
Kam has a choice to make. Me or you. I have another box, brought online yesterday. He can have it. Or he can go with the one you guys are offering.
Up to Kam, no hard feelings either way Kam.
irc.thewargrounds.com
#WG
www.thewargrounds.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228178 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 14:04 |
fl00d3d
Messages: 1107
Registered: August 2003
Location: Iowa, USA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 16:14 |
If fl00d3d didn't hold up his end of the agreement with you, then he voids your contract. In doing so, you have no agreement to keep letting Kamuix use the box, allowing you to take it from him, thus voiding his and TA's contract. If both of those incidents took place, then you having the nick is neither morally or legally wrong, in my eyes.
|
Justin doesnt have the power to void our contract with Kamuix. He only has the power to cause problems between Tsunami and Kamuix ... which he has done. As long as Tsunami provides Kamuix the box he was promised, our end has been filled. We had no chance or warning to make things right with Kamuix. Which we are in the process of doing right now.
| jschultz9 wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 16:16 |
fl00d3d failed to make his payment on the box, I kept the box online, made the payment, kam was able to keep his servers and everything online. Without having to switch everything to a new box.
Kam agreed to this, as it was in his best intrest since fl00d3d didnt make his payment to me for the box.
I could have shut down the box, and left everyone sitting high and dry, but I didnt, I made things easier for Kam and good for me. Sorry fl00d3d, but I dont fork out cash of 200 a month to get screwed over. You dont pay me, ill let box go offline, Kam looses his stuff, you loose nick. I get Kam a new box, i get nick.
All has the same end result. Just without all the extra leg work.
|
(1) It was never part of the agreement that I would pay you for this box. It was only agreed that Kamuix would get *A* box. Which he did. And now that you're tkaing that from him he will get *A*nother box.
(2) You kept Kam running because you had him by the balls and you wanted to keep his favor. I would do the same thing if I were him ... just to keep my shit up until I found out what was really going on. As I write this Kamuix was thrown off your server because he chose to do the right thing. Youre response? Kicked him off ... rather than let him back up his things and leave peacefully. How generous.
(3) How could your claims possibly be true if I am going to "fork over" just as much money for that box you were running .. to Kamuix ... right now? We are paying just as much money for his box right now as you were paying for yours. The only difference is, now we're smart enough to realize that bringing 3rd parties into agreements was a dumb thing to do.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228180 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 14:10 |
jschultz9
Messages: 276
Registered: March 2005
Location: USA
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
But see fl00d3d where your mistake is, is lying.
Explain why I would pay 200 a month for a box that more or less doesnt benefit me.
Just out of the kindness of my heart? Not a chance in hell.
So your saying You never agreed to make the payment on the box. Then your a bold face liar.
irc.thewargrounds.com
#WG
www.thewargrounds.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228181 is a reply to message #228178] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 14:14 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| fl00d3d wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 17:04 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 16:14 |
If fl00d3d didn't hold up his end of the agreement with you, then he voids your contract. In doing so, you have no agreement to keep letting Kamuix use the box, allowing you to take it from him, thus voiding his and TA's contract. If both of those incidents took place, then you having the nick is neither morally or legally wrong, in my eyes.
|
Justin doesnt have the power to void our contract with Kamuix. He only has the power to cause problems between Tsunami and Kamuix ... which he has done. As long as Tsunami provides Kamuix the box he was promised, our end has been filled. We had no chance or warning to make things right with Kamuix. Which we are in the process of doing right now.
|
No... as warranto agreed (and he's a law student), he would simply have to cut Kamuix's access to the box to void the agreement between you and Kamuix, since there is no defining of what would happen if Kamuix's access was taken away. By the agreement, it looks as if as long as Kamuix has the box Justin gave to him, the agreement is valid, but as soon as it's taken away, it'd be void. The devil is in the details.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228184 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 14:24 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Technically the box was paid for up until the 31st. Payment was due on the 24th to keep the box up after the 31st.
But, seeing as how the agreement was between Kam and TA, only Kam and TA can break the deal. The deal where js paid for the server that TA was offering to Kam was a separate deal that has been broken. If TA is unable to pay for a server on their own, then the TA/Kam deal breaks. TA should be given a reasonable amount of time to procure a replacement box to keep the deal alive before it's declared dead.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dispute between WG and Tsunami [message #228187 is a reply to message #228121] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 14:57 |
fl00d3d
Messages: 1107
Registered: August 2003
Location: Iowa, USA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
The situation has been resolved the responsible way: Kamuix is letting us fulfill our end of the bargain -- which we are doing -- and we will stay in agreeance as originally negotiated.
04 will remain property of Tsunami-Alliance. Please lock this thread.
|
|
|
|
| Pages (2): [ 2] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jul 05 08:05:40 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01049 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
