Evony threaten to sue me to suppress the truth.

I think on principle we shouldn't delete anything. And that's with me not liking the way Bruce uses the forum as a soapbox for his blog.

Evony and their lawyers can go fuck themselves with their bully tactics.

 

One word.

Edgevony.

 

This is silly. Evony isnt in australia, bruce isnt in australia.
What the fuck are they going to do?
deny him entry to australia?
Big fucking deal.
Tell them to fuck off.

Fucking parasites

 

For the love of God, why? He got voted out twice and doesn't even fulfil the criteria for membership anyway.

 

Bruce will get back in when Satan drives to work in a snow-plough.

I agree with GG, TCE has been dragged in to something that is entirely of Bruce's making.
Looks like Parasite versus Parasite to me.

 

...it's out on Kotaku now...

http://kotaku.com/5345584/evony-devs-sound-a-bit-iffy

 

What Mr Luisp said.

Delete nothing.

They can fuck right off.

 

Sure he's a shameless self promoter, and I'd hope he would stop with it, but I think he brings a perspective which is totaly lacking on TCE ( sadly ), namely the marketing perspective. In the same vein I think the community benefits from having Ethereal, zoiks, BO$$$, Evestay and co from the producer / management pov.

 

Like knowing how to spam blog posts on forums? Well, it works I suppose.

 

Hehe, he had a few instances where he joined in on the discussion without mentioning the blog

 

It usually went like this:

- Report of $BIG_GAME_COMPANY promoting their new game Violent Corpse by paying homeless people to picket funerals.
- TCEers outraged.
- Bruce comes in saying "well you have to admit, it's good marketing".

 

1) Because of reciprocal agreements a judgement in Australia is enforceable in the UK.
2) My articles contained only provable fact and fair comment. There is no libelous content.
3) I cannot possibly defend the case, even though I am in the right.
4) So Evony can re write history, censor the internet and stifle free speech.
5) It could happen to you.
6) The only way forward is the Streisand Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Already this is working as you have seen on Kotaku
7) The Guardian are in the same position as me and are not giving way.

So please, if you can, cut and paste my Evony content anywhere and everywhere you can on the web. I don't need any links or any credits. I am not interested in traffic. I am interested in getting the truth so widely disseminated that Evony can't do anything about it.

 

I am not a lawyer (not even on internet forums) so I am not certain, but how does openly encouraging spreading your words, which are very easily proven to be yours, make it any harder for them to sue you?

In fact, wouldn't it just be one more thing they could sue you for?

 

It doesn't make it harder for them to sue me.

Look up Streisand Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

 

Wut?

Seriously - what agreement is this?

 

Sure. I know what that is. That's when the news of litigation causes lots of people to go find out what all the hubbub is about. It happens naturally as a result of human curiosity.

Actively spreading the info is not the Streisand effect.

Obviously, I think their litigation is frivolous, but by publicly trying to get folks to republish you, I suspect you're opening yourself, and others, up to additional charges. It's be a lot safer to just let it happen naturally.

 

Seriously: http://www.mccullough.com.au/downloads/2476Litigation and Dispute Resolution - 16 March 2009.pdf

 

Something interesting about Australian law, which explain why they were using a small town non specialist lawyer to threaten me:

Defamation Act 2005 - SECT 9
Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation

9. Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation


(1) A corporation has no cause of action for defamation in relation to the
publication of defamatory matter about the corporation unless it was an
excluded corporation at the time of the publication.

(2) A corporation is an excluded corporation if-

(a) the objects for which it is formed do not include obtaining financial
gain for its members or corporators; or

(b) it employs fewer than 10 persons and is not related to another
corporation-

and the corporation is not a public body.

(3) In counting employees for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), part-time
employees are to be taken into account as an appropriate fraction of a
full-time equivalent.

(4) In determining whether a corporation is related to another corporation for
the purposes of subsection (2)(b), section 50 of the Corporations Act applies
as if references to bodies corporate in that section were references to
corporations within the meaning of this section.

(5) subsection (1) does not affect any cause of action for defamation that an
individual associated with a corporation has in relation to the publication of
defamatory matter about the individual even if the publication of the same
matter also defames the corporation.


(6) In this section-

corporation includes any body corporate or corporation constituted by or under
a law of any country (including by exercise of a prerogative right), whether
or not a public body; public body means a local government body or other
governmental or public authority constituted by or under a law of any country.

 

this is the newest jury lady system logo in Australia!

 

Brilliant.
I am just off to Rarotonga in the Cook Islands, where girls wear coconuts as bras. A bit like your picture.