Zac, your post disturbs me greatly. Your post amounts to a threat that you will start policing conduct (actions) based upon intent and reception. This idea is something that is regarded universally as impossible, dangerous. The reason it is considered impossible and dangerous is intent is arbitrary as is reception, they both differ from person to person. In other words, there is no reasonable legal obligation, action, or recourse, for any party involved that can pertain to intent or reception.
Ultimately, it’s not about context. Context is meaningless. If I attack a player, my reasons for doing so do not change the characterization of that attack, and neither does that player’s reception to that attack. I simply attacked a player. Is that ok, or is it not?
Yes....yes they do, if you attack a person, and blow them up, not talking, giving no indication of your reasoning, and especially if you do it while out powering them significantly, your actions say a lot about that, simply making a demand or a statement, and not blowing them up unless they don't comply with that statement changes the whole thing. Just going blowing them up, and moving on to blowing up someone else without having any in game based reason or gain from it, makes it quickly lean towards griefing and harassment.
You're wrong though...
View attachment 107712
Yeah, if you only cut that part out of what I wrote....But guess what you aren't "helping" fight off an oppressive regime, by killing random people left right and center, you could be killing the very people you claim to help?
but yeah I'm guessing you are leaning on the "just hunt other commanders", here's the thing, last I checked....when you are hunting someone you have a reason for it, based around what you are doing, in this case the game you are playing, so it is based in the game. If you are hunting others simply for the entirely out of game reason of watching them blow up and laughing at their loss...then yeah.....
I have to disagree. If targeting a stream in game is harassment then inciting people to specifically target SDC in game is also harassment.
"because SDC could easily have avoided it by not doing what they did, which as described here is clearly an act of harassment, SDC harassed mobius, they reacted."
Doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Inciting people to action can be done to harass, that much is true.
But when it is inciting to fight back? well as linked above, it is actually rebelling against something an action done against it, and encouraging people to fight back, the whole thing is based around that SDC could easily have avoided this by NOT doing what they did, but since they did, it is a consequence to their actions.
And before you go "but SDC only did what they did because people chose to play in private group so what they did was a consequence to what mobius did" that's...not how things work, if someone does something entirely separate from you and that does not affect you in any way, then you can't use things they've done to justify your actions. That would be like, because your neighbour has a lot of money and you don't, you rob a bank, and blame him for having more money then you?
