PCJC2019-8 - Juniper [aka Dizerel] ruling 12th Nov 2019
{Note - This ruling was edited from an earlier version in [26] to specify SC not the Quorum, and [28] to clarify the where the Court asks that the apology is published}
The COURT
Pegasus Command
Ref: PCJC2019-8
12th November 2019
JUDGEMENT
speccarroo [aka xwolfxfreekx (wolfy)] ACCUSER
vs
Juniper [aka Dizerel] PROTECTOR
Judges
Charles
smearcampaign
Snow
BACKGROUND
[1] The Court received a complaint from the accuser alleging a violation of communication rules by the protector on 24th October 2019.
[2] The Court obtained screenshots of the alleged violation and determined that there was a case to answer.
[3] A hearing took place 19:00 EST on 12th November 2019. The accuser and protector were present for the hearing. No witnesses or representatives appeared for either party.
[4] The remarks that the Court examined include;
a. nothing feels better than getting camped, but then coming back, carrying the game, and telling the person to uninstall
b. Eh. People who rely on their jungler to camp them are subhuman anyways. I feel nothing telling them to uninstall or kill themselves. I dont say that latter thing to them because riot is a bunch of special snowflakes and "words hurt" so I would get banned if I say it.
c. It shows Im willing to weed out the weakness in humanity
because I truly believe that some humans dont deserve life
kick be from the game, hate me, but thats my belief
[5] Discord screenshots covering the conversation were made available to all parties at the outset of the hearing.
TESTIMONY
[6] The accuser contended that the remarks in the screenshots violated communications rules
[7] The protector opted to address the Court via text rather than voice. The Court did not view the protector’s testimony less favourably because of this.
[8] The Court asked the protector if the screenshots accurately recorded remarks that were made by the protector. The protector said “They are all accurate”
[9] The Court asked the protector if they were familiar with the PegCom comms rules. The protector replied “only vaguely”
[10] The Court highlighted several rules to all parties:
8-COMR-2. Do not use racial, sexual orientation, political, intentionally offensive, demeaning, or sexist language at all. This includes names used for toons, guild site names, and call signs in our communications servers.
8-COMR-3. Do not be disruptive to ongoing operations, follow an op commander’s lead as to what is allowed during game ops or other events.
8-COMR-5. We are all friends and need to respect others as well as we would want to be. If you want to talk about politics or something not involving an op it may be best to simply drop to a room where that will not interfere with an op or someone’s enjoyment of the game.
[11] The accuser and protector were given several more opportunities to address The Court.
JUDGEMENT
[12] The Judges retired to the judicial chambers and thoroughly discussed the evidence and testimonies for nearly 3 hours to form this judgement.
[13] The Judges unanimously agreed that the comments to “uninstall”, though breaching the letter of the Comm Rules in this context, and blunt, is expected and tolerated in the course of Player Vs Player competitive gaming communities. We do not condone such actions but believe it is up to the Game commander and the game’s local officers to administer solutions to this, non-judicially.
[14] The Judges unanimously agreed that 8-COMR-3 was not breached as the conversation took place outside of an Op or other event.
[15] The Judges found by a majority of 2 to 1 that 8-COMR-2 was violated.
[16] The Judges found unanimously that 8-COMR-5 was violated.
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
[17] The protector continued to make some of these remarks after the accuser had objected and after the SC wrote “Enough plz”. The Court found that this showed a disregard for the chain of command.
[18] The protector acknowledged in their remarks at the time of the violation that they were risking a ban by standing by what they had said.
[19] The protector showed some remorse in the hearing but continued to argue that the moderation of their communications by PegCom comms rules is incompatible with them holding their own philosophical beliefs.
[20] The Court is concerned that this resistance to the comms rules indicates that the protector is likely to breach the comms rules again.
MITIGATING FACTORS
[21] The protector did not deny or dispute that the comments were made by them and that the screenshots were therefore accurate
[22] The protector complied fully with the judicial process and was completely orderly in the hearing
[23] The protector recognised their own comments as “toxicity” and that “they weren’t necessary for general chat”
[24] The protector shared some personal mitigating information at the hearing, which would be inappropriate to reproduce in this document.
[25] The protector is a Citizen of previous good character according to Court records.
PENALTIES
[26] Recommendation to Supreme Commander that the protector is debarred from participating in any PegCom Ops or events for 1 calendar month. This applies to the protector themselves; they are not permitted to participate with any accounts they may hold.
[27] Recommendation to The Quorum that citizen status is revoked from the protector, reverting them to “member” status. The protector, if desired, must earn citizen status from the beginning ie. Three months membership in good standing (from removal or date set by Quorum) and a request to a Game commander followed by Quorum approval.
[28] The protector is required to make a written apology to anyone impacted by the remarks in question, posted into the chat where the comments were made, and we will request the GC to pin it for one week.
APPEALS
[29] The protector has a right of appeal which is outlined in “Judicial Rules” on the PegCom website.
COURT REMARKS
[30] The Court thanks all parties for their orderly participation in the hearing.
[31] This case (and others before it) highlighted a weakness in the complaint process for potential violations of the comms rules. A new process for these reports has been introduced. This change has had no bearing on any case received before the process was rolled out, including this case.
Both the accuser and protector suggested that a ‘vent room’ or similar would be of benefit and may have avoided this breach of the rules. Implementing this is not a judicial matter and parties who wish to advance this idea must do so via the chain of command.