Welcome to Syndicate Gamers

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Swed

Server Officer
  • Content count

    2366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Swed last won the day on November 25 2016

Swed had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Swed

  • Rank
    Meme Master
  • Birthday May 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

8425 profile views
  1. Cheating badly doesn't excuse you from cheating.
  2. Ignorantia juris non excusat From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content. European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not knowing the law is harmful). Contents [hide] 1Explanation 2Translation 3Into law 4See also 5References Explanation[edit] See also: Promulgation and Promulgation (canon law) The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability. The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated").[3] In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can only bind when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies may acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all. In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[4] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge. In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a pair of hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting.[citation needed] In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English law case in which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio was convicted even though the law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1). An alternate explanation of the origin of the maxim, though not particularly relevant to the modern context, can be found with the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. These were cultures heavily influenced by customary legal systems. Within such a system, law is learned as a person participates in the culture and customs of the community. Thus it is unreasonable to believe a person could have avoided learning them. These rules and customs were also interwoven with ethical and religious dialog so that laws expressed what is right and good and deviation that which is not. We find that Cicero wrote the following in De re publica (On the Republic): "There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times." Plato wrote similarly in Minos: "What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. And isn’t this believed by everyone ... even among the Persians, and always? ... What is fine, no doubt, is everywhere legislated as fine, and what is shameful as shameful; but not the shameful as fine or the fine as shameful."
  3. So your argument is the fact that you didn't get caught initially warrants a more lenient punishment?
  4. Happy bday dude, it's been a lot of years since we first duo q'd and I'd stop playing after one loss. Hope it's a good one!
  5. @TheShovL I didn't know the rules therefore I should be immune to them?
  6. A War3 Playable version of canals is obv the easiest way to win.
  7. 3 years, what a necro.
  8. Glad that @Fugner is featuring prominently on the header photo. He's really getting involved again and I'm proud of him.
  9. f
  10. Waiting on more free chips before I can register
  11. The error was something along the lines of missing executable or it just offered an install button right? I run into this issue occasionally. Your computer didn't spin up a drive when you started it. A restart or even a sleep would have fixed it.
  12. Weeb
  13. MOABs create over pressure, which causes relatively little surface damage relative to other bombs while collapsing the caves and tunnels under the one mile surface area. The comparison to a nuke is a huge exaggeration and one that shouldn't be taken seriously.