Hoch

Submit all the relevant information, that is, what is contained in the guidelines and e-mail it to MikeTheNose. Or you can send it to me or any other Council member who will then pass it along to the SS Council for discussion. Cheers, -Hoch

DSB will not be going offline. I have reversed my previous decision. A detailed explanation can be found here on the DSB boards: http://forums.deathstarbattle.com/showthread.php?t=1749 Cheers, -Hoch

Let me quickly interject here and point out that TurboSlug22, aka Preacher22 does not represent any view in DSB nor does he operate in any official capacity. As a matter of fact, he is no longer a member of ANY Staff in DSB (yet again), I having just terminated his services. Sorry for the interruption. Cheers, -Hoch

FM, you're my hero Seriously though, this is news to me. Personally, I do not think this is the way matters should be conducted. It is always better to have a record of every inci- dent, which benefits both players and the person dealing with the request (cov- ers their arse!). -Hoch

The issue is not one of having enough Netban Operators. Rather, it is a player going to a zone, cross zone spamming and not being netbanned or locally banned. The population of the zone where this player goes is inconsequential as either banning option would be desirable. In the case of a local ban, a Netban Administrator can simply copy the local ban to net. This is what I suggest as an appropriate course of action. If a player is cross zone spamming contact a moderator. The moderator should try to ?find the player and contact a member of the zone staff where he is at. If the zone where the player is located at does not have a lvl 1 Op on at the time, then the moderator should ask that a local ban be placed with the expectation that it will be copied to net. If, however, the zone does not have a lvl 1 Op, and most do (whether or not they are active is a separate matter), then the same should be done with a ?message or an e-mail sent to the Netban Administrators (either myself or Mike) to copy the local ban to net. -Hoch

To the first question, ?lostpassword . An e-mail will be sent to the e-mail account that you used to register the player name. As to the second question, the proper way is of course to submit a ticket on the website www.ssbase.com. You might find that a Billing Op will talk to you in-game about your player name, but this is entirely at their discretion. Cheers, -Hoch

I started playing the game back in mid to late 1996. I remember Sniper well and keep a copy of it to play from time to time. Though there is a Sniper are- na in DSB, somewhere. As far as I know, I am only one of a handful or "original" players left. How sad does that sound Most people recall the terrible lag, which was bad for those still on a dial-up. But I was at university at the time, so lag was never an issue for us. We num- bered about two dozen or so and had a good time even with those still using a dial-up. As with many, my interest wanned when the game went pay-for-play. I refus- ed to pay and could not be asked to continue playing with a cracked version. Oh, the irony. Several years later I bought three pristine copies of Subspace still in their original packaging and wrapping. My hiatus began in 1998 and continued until late 2000. It was brief a revival because I was off to university again. In 2002 I made a return, which at the time I expected to last only a couple of months. 2009 and I'm still here. Joy! -Hoch

As I wrote previously, at issue is not whether there is denial of a right to self defence or to defend personal property. Rather, it may come down to whether it was just and appropriate in the circumstances to use that kind of force and when used this amounted to a violation of the claimants civil rights. I understand what you are saying, and perhaps I am applying too much legalese into a sensational article, but on face of it the case raises impor- tant questions of basic civil (human) rights and whether there has been a violation of those rights. This may not seem to be important but the judg- ment could have far-reaching implications (unless the case is later disting- uished on facts). Personally, I have no view on the matter because I approach every legal case that is reported with an open mind. Unless you (generally) have read the papers there is no way of knowing all of the issues beyond the headlines. That said, as a barrister and as someone who has lived in Arizona for an ex- tended period of time, I do have a feeling for the case without having read the papers, which is why I suspect the claimants will have an uphill battle on their hands. -Hoch

I would not describe this case in the way that you did NBV. Without having read the statement of the case, but bearing in mind that this is a civil case brought in a federal court, the issues concern civil rights violations. Properly framed, though based on the scant information made available, are the defendants liable to the claimants for violating their civil rights and inflict- ing emotional distress based on those violations. It is, of course, important to the defendants case that these events occurred as a result of the claimants traversing one of the defendant's land without permission. As a general rule, you cannot profit for an illegal act. However, this is not without exceptions. In this particular case, I would say that one the issue is whether the force used by one of the defendant's was proportionate to the presented threat. Indeed, you have a right to defend your property, and the laws in the US are more gen- erous than here in England, but this is not carte blanche. Further, and without going into great detail, the right to self-defence is not taken away because it is not absolute. Irrespective of one's personal views on illegal immigrants, basic civil (human) rights must be maintained. -Hoch

Now this is an interesting test case of US federal law. I would be keen to see the claimant's statement of case. I would also like to see the vetting procedures for the jury. Assembling an objective jury on a case like this and in a state like Arizona undoubtedly puts the claimant's on the defen- sive. 'Tis a shame this did not happen in Maricopa County. I am sure Sheriff Joe Arpaio would have a field day. -Hoch

I am amazed this has only come up now. Back in October, I did inform all SSCI zone owners and Sysops that I would be shutting down the server. I originally wanted to do it by the end of November. However, given that not a single one of them nor Death+ bothered to reply to my messages and e-mails, I gave them another month. I did notice that there was a message in one of the zones news.txt. Again, I wish all the operators of those zones much luck. Cheers, -Hoch

You do realise, of course, that this junket was probably planned months in advance and certainly long before AIG had to go to the federal government cap in hand. In addition, if AIG had cancelled at the last minute then they would have lost whatever deposit was paid towards the trip. Not to mention the resort that hosted this event would have been out all that money, which translates to lose profits and jobs. Two sides to every story... -Hoch

Death Star Battle is proud to present its newest addition: automated Sector League! More information can be found here. The link to the Sector League website is: http://sector.dsbleagues.com I hope you all enjoy this newest addition to the zone! Cheers, -Hoch

Republicans consistently vote more often than Democrats. Therefore, the only thing McCain has to worry about is a portion of the Republican base staying at home on election day. There still remains a sizeable majority of Republicans that are skeptical of John McCain. And similar is not quite the same. Strip out the primary politics that I mentioned above and compare it to what McCain is saying now. If you have an open mind you will see an obvious difference in the language. But, I'm not here to create a window into anyone's political soul. Just try playing devil's advocate some time. You might just surprise yourself! -Hoch

Most likely? So she is not corrupt' date=' or is it a guilty before innocent thing? I see your political ninja's have obained a copy of a report that hasn't even been issued yet. Don't try to sex-up or demonise hunting by calling it indiscriminate. The woman likes to hunt. If you don't, then good for you too. Must be a very important issue for you then. Okay. What is your definition of a redneck? What is the generally accepted definition of a redneck? Does being a redneck disqualify you from holding office?

I'm constantly amazed how the Left ignores the fact that the conservative-right absolutely detests McCain. Of course, this makes sense politically. But anyone with a modi!@#$%^&* of intelli- gence will realise this And Britain has a three-party system, not two. -Hoch

What's wrong with her? -Hoch

At the end of the day John McCain is a Republican. Therefore, you would expect that he has consistently voted along party lines. However, and again, McCain has not always done this. (something very alien in the UK though increasingly becoming more common). He has clashed with the Bush Administration over tax cuts, judicial appointments, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo and campaign finance reform. The list goes on. I do not fault the Democrats for trying to draw a link between McCain and President Bush. !@#$%^&*, I expect it and would do the same if I worked for the DNC! Not to mention the fact that they pinched several ideas on how to do it from the Republican Party during the 2000 presidential election. From the earliest days of his campaign, McCain was branded as being too far removed from President Bush's policies and the core of the Republican Party. Obviously many people dis- agree with those policies, but, and I hate to break it to you left- wingers, not everyone does. Some of the policies you listed Finland do not form party of the values of the Republican Party. Therefore, despite McCain being a maverick within the party he is less likely to betray those core values. If those issues really matter to you, then I would not ex- pect you to vote for McCain. Though you should not rule him out entirely. You should also consider this. McCain enjoys more popularity within his own party than Obama. This is a shocking state of af- fairs considering that Obama is more of a Democrat than McCain is a Republican, as it were. This has not gone unnoticed by the Obama camp, hence the show of unity during the convention. Let me try to put all of this in perspective. Running for president involves two things: securing your party's nomination and convincing the American public that you are the one that they should vote for. The former is done through the primaries where you smooze the party faithful. If you are a Republican you go right, if you are a Democrat you go left. This election has been no different. We are now at the stage where the candidates start to drift to- wards the centre in order to get the non-aligned voters, i.e. in- dependents, and moderate members of both parties. Surprisingly, Obama started the process very early on. To me this suggests two things. One, he realised that Americans are not the socialists liberals that our European counterparts would like us to be. This is directly out of Bill Clinton's playbook. Secondly, as McCain had the nomination wrapped up fairly early he quickly realised that McCain's maverick persona would appeal to independents and mod- erate Democrats. The last liberal elected to the office of President of the United States was Jimmy Carter, and lord knows we cannot have (afford) a repeat of that. (Although Clinton was a strong lib- eral, he had a Republican Congress watching over him.) Once elected into office it is amazing just how fast those primary promises melt away. More attention should be given towards what is said and done afterwards. For these reasons and the ones above, I disagree with you Finland. This election is on the same trajectory as every election since 1992 (in 1988 Dukakis could not shift himself fast enough to the centre, and got burned for it). Though I think this is all slightly off-topic -Hoch

Finland, I do not accept most of what you wrote for the simple reason that McCain needs to secure votes from the segments of the Republican Party that voted for George Bush. Moreover, it is not uncommon for a candidate of the same party running for president to make gestures that he will continue the policies of the previous administration only to do a 180 once in office. Bush Sr did just that in his bid for the White House in 1988 when he abandoned many of President Reagan's policies. This is noth- ing more than election year politics and should only be viewed as such. (Even Obama, much to the consternation of his supporters, has shifted towards the centre and thus abandoned some of his core liberal policies.) I stand by what I wrote above; and thank you. -Hoch

There are a lot of similarities between this presidential race and the one in 2000. For one thing, there is a party in power that although is unpopular and therefore you would not expect to be a serious con- tender, nonetheless enjoys a great deal of support. Secondly, there is a candidate that is plagued with the 'guilt by !@#$%^&*ociation' label. In 2000 Al Gore filled these categories. Whilst the Democrats were not so unpopular as to be unelectable, surp!@#$%^&*ing their peak of pop- ularity during the Johnson years, there was nonetheless a sense for a need for change. As Vice-President, Al Gore was inextricably linked with the Clinton Administration. During the 2000 campaign, he went to great lengths to distance himself from Bill Clinton. 2008 is really no different. By all accounts the Democrats should be storming the White House with little or no resistance. Yet, present in- dicators show otherwise. Although McCain is not part of the Bush Ad- ministration, occupying no cabinet position nor forming part of the Bush team, because he is a Republican and has voted with the President on such divisive issues as the war in Iraq he is grouped together with the President. But this is where the similarities end. Those that believe John McCain will be another George W. Bush either do not know the man or are so narrow-minded in their thinking that they just see Republican and form the guilty-by-!@#$%^&*ociation idea. How easily we forget, conveniently by most media outlets, that for years McCain has been the bane of the Bush Administration and a sore spot for diehard conservatives within the Republican Party. The same also applies to those that erroneously believe that Christian-right will be fur- ther solidified in a John McCain presidency. In fact, this has been McCain's greatest problem because this segment of the party finds it difficult to align itself with John McCain, though ultimately they will. The 'maverick of the floor' as he has lovingly been called, has proven himself to be a unifier and not just a divider. A !@#$%^&*le, it so happens, that his opponent cannot claim. McCain has co-sponsored more cross party bills than most other Senators. This too has caused McCain problems within the Republican Party. In a way, John McCain is a gamble for the Republican Party because he sits outside of its core though extolling its values. But there is also something far more fundamental in play: 2006. In 2006 the Democrats took back control of Congress. Yet, what have they accom- plished so far? Not much, and that is pretty generous wording. For all the hope and hype heaped on the Democratic Party and Barack Obama the sea of change as turned out to be a sea of offal. And for those that think Congress cannot change the political landscape with an intransigent White House, the Republican Congress of 1995 managed to out manoeuvre Bill Clinton. So it can be done. Whomever wins will face great challenges. The victor may end up like another Jimmy Carter or George H. Bush: constrained by a faltering or slowing economy and encased in geopolitical issues with no foreseeable end. Fate may be smiling on the losers of the primaries. One can only hope that there will be no hanging chads this time around. -Hoch

Firstly, it is not fact, and secondly, that makes it disputable. South Ossetia is a region in Georgia, albeit one that has sought independence since the creation of the state of Georgia. It is in- correct to suggest that Georgia invaded South Ossetia because it did no such thing. A state cannot invade itself. Rather, as is the case here, President Saakashvili sent in the Georgian military to quell the separatists in the region. When President Saakashvili came to power he pledged to unite all of Georgians, especially those that sought independence. In what can only be described as a gross miscalculation, he decided to send in the Georgian army to bring these peoples back in. Yet as the world would bear witness Russia had its own agenda. On the premise that it was protecting its own people, which is so flaw- ed as to be considered absurd, Russia defended the Georgian sep- aratists, crushed the inferior Georgian army and pushed further south and beyond the borders of the region. President Saakashvili was well within his rights to send Georgian forces to South Ossetia. However, he should have known, as most outside observers did, that Russia was not going to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Yet, this does not justify Russia's actions. Russia deliberately and with full knowledge invaded a sovereign nation. This is without excuse. The second mistake President Saakashvili made was counting on Western/US support. Given that Russia is now an economic powerhouse, supplying Europe with natural gas and the US with crude oil, the economic ramifications for intervening are simply too high. At best, Georgia can expect is the muted overtures that the Bush Administration is making. President Saakashvili underestimated a Russian response. Yet it is unfortunate that Russia will not be held to task for invading a sovereign nation, without provocation or justification, simply on the grounds that she is protecting her 'citizens'. Russia may have a sphere of influence but it should be careful just how far it extends itself. The future for Georgia is unclear. Whatever hopes of joining NATO are now certainly dashed, let alone the lofty aspiration of EU mem- bership. This situation also highlights two further issues: the failure of US foreign policy and underscoring who really is in charge of Russia. Much as the Bush Admininstration has ignored affairs in South America, so too has it allowed false hopes to be built with a stark reality. Fortunately, Russia will be seen as the villain with its dispro- portionate use of force thus sparing the Administration a humiliating blunder in a region where it has significant presence and influence. -Hoch

The article is an interesting insofar as the author launches an all out attack on the judiciary. As an English jurist it pre- sents an interesting situation because in our cons!@#$%^&*utional monarchy Parliament is sovereign, absolutely. This simply means that no other body can overrule Parliament. Even a decision given by the European Courts do not have to be followed, though of course Parliament normally does. The situation in the US is, of course, slightly different. Early on in the courts history the principle of judicial review evolved. Some have argued that the the Supreme Court's ability to strike down legislation is a legal fiction. Whilst this is an inter- esting philosophical debate it is rather moot considering that now it is a cons!@#$%^&*utional convention. As near as I see it, the underlining issue is the extent to which the judiciary exercises its power of review. I have identified two broad questions: 1. In trying to address issues in practical law how should we approach a persistent and very difficult question when judges take a view what the law is (interpretation) and disagree with Parliament and Government, what should their powers be? 2. How much should judges be en!@#$%^&*led to shape our law as op- posed to those who we think also have a right to shape it, i.e. the Government and Parliament. A third question arises in the context of terrorism laws as to whether the interpretation of legislation by judges should sim- ply be one whereby they exercise a minimum of discretion however objectionable that legislation may be in the eyes of the claimant/pe!@#$%^&*ioner, simply because the people have spo- ken. In the case under discussion there is clear legislation pur- porting to remove federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas pe!@#$%^&*ions. In rejecting the Court's decision the author maintains the Court created a new writ. This is of course an interesting point to make, but it is one based on politics and not the law. In its judgment the Court did not create a new writ. Rather, the Court sought to clarify the position with respect to the writ of habeas corpus and foreign nationals. As evidenced from the cases sighted the law hitherto suggested that the writ was not applicable. However, the instant case rested on a separate set of facts. Consequently the previous decisions of the court must be distinguished but not followed. For this reason the author overreaches himself by noting that 'there was no writ of habeas corpus outside sovereign American territory'. The author goes on to suggest that if the appellants have the right of due process, as found in the Fifth Amendment, that this might somehow import the evocation of 'Miranda' rights. There was also discussion about US troops becoming investi- gators. The second point is easier to dismiss because this was beyond what the Court was considering. The difficulty with the first line of discussion is that it presumes far too much. Whilst there is little doubt that future similar cases will be built on this judgment it may well be that this case is confined to these particular set of facts. Moreover, the narrower issue that this case resolved may not necessarily be exported to broader issues of cons!@#$%^&*u- tional concern. As a jurist, I found myself unable to agree with the conclusions of the author. As a political scientist there is much that can be used to further propagate the belief that unelected officials are in control. Yet, no matter what level or angle I viewed it from I could not ignore that at the most fundamental level an accused has the right to know why he is being held. These are indeed unusual times, but the progression of domestic and international law firmly cements the right of habeas corpus. Indeed, there can be no derogation as the Detainee Treatment Act set out to do. On this point, I do agree with the author that it is for Congress to set-out legislation to resolve the uncertainty. But it must do so within the existing cons!@#$%^&*utional framework. -Hoch A propos, divorce was legalised long before Henry VIII. Examples range from Judaic law to Roman law. Even the Greeks allowed it.

Boy, you're thicker than !@#$%^&* I will say that. These matters are to be handled through the ticket system and not on the boards. You do yourself no favours, though it is by no means prejudicial to your ban, by continuing to create threads on this board. Clearly you have gotten a response from a Net ban Admin- istrator. Therefore, continue to use that system rather than coming here. -Hoch

If you want to dispute your net ban, then fill out a ticket as per the instructions in this forum. However, given that you have ad- mitted to providing information on how to cheat in the game and you were caught cheating, your chances of success are slim to none. Be happy you were let off with such a small ban. I would not have been as generous. -Hoch

Oh give me a break... The example was clear, plain and obvious. Quibble elsewhere -Hoch