Bazeeka: spam healing & attacking at the same time

[MeeP]

Originally posted by bazzeeka
Once again no proof [ but big bad mod has fraps ] - Fuck you Lutz stupid fagget... *:wub: *talk your shit some where else m8 *



WIPE Your Chin Cause Your Dribling SHIT!! HTFU

you must be loved by hordes of ppl, i know, they "don't understand"

[Shurt]

Originally posted by bazzeeka
Once again no proof [ but big bad mod has fraps ] - Fuck you Lutz stupid fagget... *:wub: *talk your shit some where else m8 *



WIPE Your Chin Cause Your Dribling SHIT!! HTFU

Wow, I'm glad someone is mature.

[lutz]

A man murders someone.
Let's say specifically, that this man used a gun with a silencer in a dark alley, and his friends were there watching him, too. He kills the other person. His other friends obviously don't say anything about it.
While that happens a person happens to be walking by and witnesses the entire thing.

This happens on the second day, again.

So, how many eyewitnesses were there?
Let's just say, that the eyewitnesses did not bring a camera with them (who the fuck brings a camera when walking down a street) so they have no direct video footage.

Two people claim the same thing, on two different murders on two different nights. They happen to claim the identical incident, and they also seem to know the name of the person.

72% of the court cases in the United States that convict someone are not based upon tangible evidence (videos, DNA, etc). These court cases, instead, are based upon logic, and the people presenting testimonies in relation to the crime that they witnessed.

Let's place this idea into the microchasm of Knights Online. Code of conduct is somewhat applied, and basic morals are also in place. With that in mind, where can we place this issue?

The man is completely freed and is part of the 28% "lucky" offenders, or part of the majority? Can we truly convict people upon just tangible evidence? Logic and causation plays an extraordinarily great role in this, and therefore it is fair to come to the deduction already mentioned.

A man truly innocent would not bother to wait for proof to lead to his conviction, a man truly innocent would instead deny all charges, claiming absurdity. If legitimacy was truly in effect here, there would not be the need for repeated posts of "prove it! prove it!". If you are legit you would already be proven to yourself.

If you would like, you can post your defending statement. I really, really, could care less.

[the_man_slayer]

init bruv

[bazerk|bazeeka]

Originally posted by lutz
A man murders someone.
Let's say specifically, that this man used a gun with a silencer in a dark alley, and his friends were there watching him, too. *He kills the other person. *His other friends obviously don't say anything about it.
While that happens a person happens to be walking by and witnesses the entire thing.

This happens on the second day, again.

So, how many eyewitnesses were there?
Let's just say, that the eyewitnesses did not bring a camera with them (who the fuck brings a camera when walking down a street) so they have no direct video footage.

Two people claim the same thing, on two different murders on two different nights. *They happen to claim the identical incident, and they also seem to know the name of the person.

72% of the court cases in the United States that convict someone are not based upon tangible evidence (videos, DNA, etc). *These court cases, instead, are based upon logic, and the people presenting testimonies in relation to the crime that they witnessed.

Let's place this idea into the microchasm of Knights Online. *Code of conduct is somewhat applied, and basic morals are also in place. *With that in mind, where can we place this issue?

The man is completely freed and is part of the 28% "lucky" offenders, or part of the majority? *Can we truly convict people upon just tangible evidence? *Logic and causation plays an extraordinarily great role in this, and therefore it is fair to come to the deduction already mentioned.

A man truly innocent would not bother to wait for proof to lead to his conviction, a man truly innocent would instead deny all charges, claiming absurdity. *If legitimacy was truly in effect here, there would not be the need for repeated posts of "prove it! prove it!". *If you are legit you would already be proven to yourself.

If you would like, you can post your defending statement. *I really, really, could care less.

its just a game LOL

[lutz]

Originally posted by bazerk|bazeeka+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bazerk|bazeeka)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-lutz

A man murders someone.
Let's say specifically, that this man used a gun with a silencer in a dark alley, and his friends were there watching him, too. *He kills the other person. *His other friends obviously don't say anything about it.
While that happens a person happens to be walking by and witnesses the entire thing.

This happens on the second day, again.

So, how many eyewitnesses were there?
Let's just say, that the eyewitnesses did not bring a camera with them (who the fuck brings a camera when walking down a street) so they have no direct video footage.

Two people claim the same thing, on two different murders on two different nights. *They happen to claim the identical incident, and they also seem to know the name of the person.

72% of the court cases in the United States that convict someone are not based upon tangible evidence (videos, DNA, etc). *These court cases, instead, are based upon logic, and the people presenting testimonies in relation to the crime that they witnessed.

Let's place this idea into the microchasm of Knights Online. *Code of conduct is somewhat applied, and basic morals are also in place. *With that in mind, where can we place this issue?

The man is completely freed and is part of the 28% "lucky" offenders, or part of the majority? *Can we truly convict people upon just tangible evidence? *Logic and causation plays an extraordinarily great role in this, and therefore it is fair to come to the deduction already mentioned.

A man truly innocent would not bother to wait for proof to lead to his conviction, a man truly innocent would instead deny all charges, claiming absurdity. *If legitimacy was truly in effect here, there would not be the need for repeated posts of "prove it! prove it!". *If you are legit you would already be proven to yourself.

If you would like, you can post your defending statement. *I really, really, could care less.

its just a game LOL[/b]

And...?

I'm just providing an example.

[BattalionCommander]

Originally posted by lutz
A man murders someone.
Let's say specifically, that this man used a gun with a silencer in a dark alley, and his friends were there watching him, too. *He kills the other person. *His other friends obviously don't say anything about it.
While that happens a person happens to be walking by and witnesses the entire thing.

This happens on the second day, again.

So, how many eyewitnesses were there?
Let's just say, that the eyewitnesses did not bring a camera with them (who the fuck brings a camera when walking down a street) so they have no direct video footage.

Two people claim the same thing, on two different murders on two different nights. *They happen to claim the identical incident, and they also seem to know the name of the person.

72% of the court cases in the United States that convict someone are not based upon tangible evidence (videos, DNA, etc). *These court cases, instead, are based upon logic, and the people presenting testimonies in relation to the crime that they witnessed.

Let's place this idea into the microchasm of Knights Online. *Code of conduct is somewhat applied, and basic morals are also in place. *With that in mind, where can we place this issue?

The man is completely freed and is part of the 28% "lucky" offenders, or part of the majority? *Can we truly convict people upon just tangible evidence? *Logic and causation plays an extraordinarily great role in this, and therefore it is fair to come to the deduction already mentioned.

A man truly innocent would not bother to wait for proof to lead to his conviction, a man truly innocent would instead deny all charges, claiming absurdity. *If legitimacy was truly in effect here, there would not be the need for repeated posts of "prove it! prove it!". *If you are legit you would already be proven to yourself.

If you would like, you can post your defending statement. *I really, really, could care less.

Is it really that unreasonable to ask for some sort of evidence that you did something wrong?

While witness testimony can have serious weight in real life trials, should it carry the same weight online, where your accusers are usually faceless people known only by their online name who really stand nothing to lose by lying? In real life multiple testimonies saying relatively the same thing count for more than just one or two testimonies. Online, it’s not hard for a person to create a number of different accounts to make this multitude of testimonies.

I’m certainly not saying this is what happened here, but just to point out that real life trials and these sort of posts shouldn’t be held to the same standard, that online more that a few witness testimonies should probably be needed. Either way, the issue of bazzeeka’s guilt is sort of moot at this point as he has since decided to quit the game.
http://www.ko4life.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58541

[aeLLio]

god damn its a fucking game do you guys really need to write in formal language please lol?? its hard to understand with ur chink words lutz. Big words > me. lol

[Supreme]

Originally posted by lutz
If you would like, you can post your defending statement. *I really, really, could care less.

translation : I really really care alot - and ima write a 5 paragraph essay to prove my non caring point.

[aeLLio]

lolololol why is all the sudden when he got his mod status he is writting paragraphs now and all in formal soo stupid imo but as he wishes

[bazerk|bazeeka]

:P :P i smell ownt

[undefined]

i smell a cheatego

[Cocaine]

If anyone thinks any of the words lutz used in that post are big, they are a fucking 3rd grader.

[DragonFire]

Originally posted by bazerk|bazeeka

its just a game LOL

LOL it's just a game, stop buying all your shit from ebay.

[Vacant]

Why would lutz lie? He has nothing to gain stop being so damn trusting in your friend. What I find hilarious is how instead of trying to defend himself he is just mudslinging calling lutz names, ect and now quitting game? Guilty conscience plyz! -_- If 2 people have seen him do it then DUH, why do you need moreproof. Unless they have something to gain I would trust them.