OOC Harrassment after comments on poor RP

[Shizzle]

Also i want the complainer against Kyle to explain what did he mean when he said the following:

"Karel Scherpereel
Holy !@#$, what's with the defensive attitude all the time. Give it a rest. Or QQ"

You said you didn't know who Woelfy is yet here you re asking him what's up with the defensive attitude - all the time- . All the time?

There is a blur here. And also you clearly see that someone is frustrated, you answer with QQ and then you repeat QQ.

QQ is a form of mockery.Sometimes such mockeries are worse than a vulgar insult.

Looking at the other Magistrates here; am I supposed to answer this? I don't think it's proper to drench up a closed case, certainly if you chose to abstain, Lavigna, and after a verdict has been reached.

Somehow I feel you still think I provoked Kyle other than those two messages on facebook. I already admitted they were inappropriate and explained I didn't consider QQ quite as offensive as others might, and I apologised. I'll readily admit following up with another QQ wasn't exactly grand of me either.

However you must realise that I had bitten my tongue two times before, when Kyle chose not to, and that this time I just didn't. Because these two incidents were long past (over 30 days) and without record, I didn't bring them up because they would be no more than defamation without grounds; equal to what I have been facing throughout this topic (mostly from you).

It appears you sympathise more with Kyle's case than I would expect from an (impartial?) magistrate.

In any case, I consider this case closed, as I believe all other parties involved do (including Kyle). I doubt I'll honour further requests for bits of information if the only reason you want them is to see me guilty, and really believe this whole debacle has wasted more than enough time for anyone involved (including Kyle).

[Lavigna]

Looking at the other Magistrates here; am I supposed to answer this? I don't think it's proper to drench up a closed case, certainly if you chose to abstain, Lavigna, and after a verdict has been reached.

Somehow I feel you still think I provoked Kyle other than those two messages on facebook. I already admitted they were inappropriate and explained I didn't consider QQ quite as offensive as others might, and I apologised. I'll readily admit following up with another QQ wasn't exactly grand of me either.

However you must realise that I had bitten my tongue two times before, when Kyle chose not to, and that this time I just didn't. Because these two incidents were long past (over 30 days) and without record, I didn't bring them up because they would be no more than defamation without grounds; equal to what I have been facing throughout this topic (mostly from you).

It appears you sympathise more with Kyle's case than I would expect from an (impartial?) magistrate.

In any case, I consider this case closed, as I believe all other parties involved do (including Kyle). I doubt I'll honour further requests for bits of information if the only reason you want them is to see me guilty, and really believe this whole debacle has wasted more than enough time for anyone involved (including Kyle).

I don't sympathize with Kyle, i know he was harassed.I asked to abstain because i would vote not guilty without second thought.That makes me impartial concerning the voting, but now i complain against two wrong decisions.

I don't know you but you make it difficult for me to understand when you complain but state you don't want him punished, the fact you say you didn't know him , then you realized you knew too much about him..it is so blury to me.

I have every right to ask for an appeal on a decision i consider wrong and in fact every player should do the same.

Apart the fact we shouldn't rule on matters brought up from Facebook when there were no rules.All i saw in that post was other players agreeing with him and answering back civilized , you throwing a QQ to him and then the counter attack.

Two points i want you to comment:

1)Quote:"Secondly, to provide documentation on the issue. For all I know (and now I do, from those other cases), Kyle has been harrassing other players. I can't say I am deeply traumatised by his attempt at insulting me, but others might have been. Perhaps recently joined players have already left because of him, something that can only be bad for BM as a whole."

You know what from other cases?Vellos posted 3 cases that had to do with harass,two of them were not connected to Kyle and the third that actually was , he was the c-o-m-p-l-a-i-n-e-r.And all that led you to the fact Kyle harasses other players?
Explain your logic on this.

2) Quote: "When I reacted on facebook I didn't even realise Kyle was Guile's player, it was only afterwards (when Skarxion added 'Jaeger sucks', and when I got Kyle's message)"

wait a second because earlier you said....

quote:"I just ignored the Guile family altogether. Also because I figured I might be the only one annoyed by these roleplays, and I didn't consider it my place to spoil others' fun any further. It was only after Kyle started a rather lame argument on facebook with no real content that I reacted again, admittedly not in the best way. However, I didn't just reply with QQ, as I was genuinly interested in what his big problem was."

Odd much?

Did you or didn't you know who he was?

[Velax]

I have every right to ask for an appeal on a decision i consider wrong and in fact every player should do the same.

I would have thought the appeal should come from the player himself rather than from a third party.

[Geronus]

Why was that first case never finished? I went back and looked, and can't see any reason why it wasn't. I mean, everyone involved was being a total ass, but that's no reason not to follow through and make a ruling. It would be pointless now, as the Ilyrians family that the case was filed against was locked quite some time ago.

We decided not to because the Titans intervened in the whole Swordfell business. In the backroom we were moving toward issuing warnings to four of the players we knew were involved in all the OOC nastiness in Swordfell, which at the time included Kyle. There was also talk of following that up with forced deportations if the nastiness continued. Once we agreed to warnings however, it became a case of "OK, well the Titans already warned everyone so... What would be the point of us doing it too?" In retrospect we probably should have clarified this in the case thread itself to make it clear what our consensus was to all involved. This is something I am happy to rectify if we can all agree it's worth doing. It is also worth noting that there was a strong consensus among the Magistrates about this. The only thing we were quibbling about really was the details (locks or a warning).

[Shizzle]

I don't sympathize with Kyle, i know he was harassed.I asked to abstain because i would vote not guilty without second thought.That makes me impartial concerning the voting, but now i complain against two wrong decisions.

I don't know you but you make it difficult for me to understand when you complain but state you don't want him punished, the fact you say you didn't know him , then you realized you knew too much about him..it is so blury to me.

I have every right to ask for an appeal on a decision i consider wrong and in fact every player should do the same.

Apart the fact we shouldn't rule on matters brought up from Facebook when there were no rules.All i saw in that post was other players agreeing with him and answering back civilized , you throwing a QQ to him and then the counter attack.

Two points i want you to comment:

1)Quote:"Secondly, to provide documentation on the issue. For all I know (and now I do, from those other cases), Kyle has been harrassing other players. I can't say I am deeply traumatised by his attempt at insulting me, but others might have been. Perhaps recently joined players have already left because of him, something that can only be bad for BM as a whole."

You know what from other cases?Vellos posted 3 cases that had to do with harass,two of them were not connected to Kyle and the third that actually was , he was the c-o-m-p-l-a-i-n-e-r.And all that led you to the fact Kyle harasses other players?
Explain your logic on this.

2) Quote: "When I reacted on facebook I didn't even realise Kyle was Guile's player, it was only afterwards (when Skarxion added 'Jaeger sucks', and when I got Kyle's message)"

wait a second because earlier you said....

quote:"I just ignored the Guile family altogether. Also because I figured I might be the only one annoyed by these roleplays, and I didn't consider it my place to spoil others' fun any further. It was only after Kyle started a rather lame argument on facebook with no real content that I reacted again, admittedly not in the best way. However, I didn't just reply with QQ, as I was genuinly interested in what his big problem was."

Odd much?

Did you or didn't you know who he was?

I replied to your previous post out of courtesy, but honestly I don't intend to waste any more time on this; I won't even read your wall of text. Unless other magistrates believe I should, of course, or if Kyle himself asks for clarification.

[Lavigna]

I would have thought the appeal should come from the player himself rather than from a third party.

I am not a third party at all.We are talking about two decisions which raise questions upon the ruling versus harass complains in general.

I am not asking both cases to be re opened so just Kyle can benefit from them. This is mostly me against those two decisions because it appears we are ruling lightly in such an important case and that practicaly sets the base for further decisions.

[Lavigna]

I replied to your previous post out of courtesy, but honestly I don't intend to waste any more time on this; I won't even read your wall of text. Unless other magistrates believe I should, of course, or if Kyle himself asks for clarification.

You don't convince me.At all.

Infact these are questions you should have answered before any decision was taken.

Waiting for other Magistrates to tell you if you should answer?Now that's mature.

I asked two questions, i didn't send the Spanish Inquisition after you.The least you can do after filling a questionable complain is to support it.

Do learn that just one decision is not enough to end a case. Decisions are not golden rules, they can always change and in this particular case, should change.

[Shizzle]

You don't convince me.At all.

Infact these are questions you should have answered before any decision was taken.

Waiting for other Magistrates to tell you if you should answer?Now that's mature.

I asked two questions, i didn't send the Spanish Inquisition after you.The least you can do after filling a questionable complain is to support it.

Do learn that just one decision is not enough to end a case. Decisions are not golden rules, they can always change and in this particular case, should change.

Wether the case is ended or not is my decision to make, but sincea verdict has been reached, it seems all other Magistrates agree this case is closed.

It's not my task to convince you; apparently the other Magistrates have been convinced already.

Yes, you asked me two questions, but you asked questions before as well, and I'm sure more will follow.

If you really think I am guilty of something, and Kyle is not, you shouldn't have abstained. If you regret this decision, don't take it out on me; you chose not to have an opinion.

[Lavigna]

You fail to understand what abstain means.

I abstained because since i know first hand the ooc harass this player has received so my decision would be biased.Even after stating i abstained i still supported my opinion , abstaining to a voting does not mean silencing yourself.

I do believe there is something weird about your complain and the fact you twisted your own words on multiple occasions.

I believe these decisions are wrong and i am trying to fix that before a wrong decision becomes a pattern for others to use and take advantage of.

[Gustav Kuriga]

You fail to understand what abstain means.

I abstained because since i know first hand the ooc harass this player has received so my decision would be biased.Even after stating i abstained i still supported my opinion , abstaining to a voting does not mean silencing yourself.

I do believe there is something weird about your complain and the fact you twisted your own words on multiple occasions.

I believe these decisions are wrong and i am trying to fix that before a wrong decision becomes a pattern for others to use and take advantage of.

Actually, abstaining is the act of removing oneself from the process in which the voting is taking place... meaning yes, you did silence yourself. Besides which, you ARE a third party. You are not the accused or the accuser, therefore you are a separate party from the two, the very definition of third party. If there was harassment, bring up the proof, I don't know how many times we have to say it in this thread.

[Lavigna]

Quit it with the proof already.Proof was given in the past and we chose to ignore.Do read the damn complain.

Do i really have to turn this to a complain to get some attention?Then i shall.

There are two decisions that apart the fact they have the same case in discussion, two different kind of decisions were taken that affect the same person and punish the same person when in one of the he is the complainer himself.


Is it so difficult for you to consider the fact that sometimes decisions of Magistrates and Titans can be wrong?
For you the fact that the complainer change his statements about knowing who Kyle was is somethng no one should look into?
How can you choose to be so one sided on this?

I abstained from the voting, i am not complaining about the voting procedure though, i am complaining about wrong decisions, poorly taken so the fact i abstained is irrelevant.

I am not asking for these cases to re open just so Kyle gets judged differently. These decisions will affect future decisions and it is an important matter to which you give little credit.
Quit it with the proof and evidence and start using your brain as well, Law and Justice is not just evidence , for the love of god if i hear this once more i will start tearing my hair off.

[Indirik]

I would like to make some clarifications here on Courthouse rules and procedures:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html

Lavigna:

There is no appeal. If you think the decision was totally wrong, you can try to mail tom@battlemaster.org - but your chances aren't very good. Unless the decision is obviously faulty, I will stand behind my Magistrates.

There is no appeal. If you think a case was handled improperly, the you have one, and only one, course of action: Email Tom. There is no appeals process. There is no reopening of old cases.

Velax:

You can, and in fact are encouraged to, bring cases even if you are not affected. If you see someone violating the right of another player, do speak up on behalf of that other player. He may not dare to or know how.

Anyone can bring up a case, even if they are not the perpetrator or the victim. If Lavigna sees that something is wrong, even if she is not involved directly, she can bring it to the Magistrates.

Everyone:
This thread remains open for the sole purpose of a short discussion to clarify the verdict of this case. It is not here for general discussion, discussion of the Magistrates proceedings, or to discuss the outcome of some other case. If you have some general questions or comments, or wish to discuss this case at length, then please open a thread on the Questions and Answers board: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,36.0.html

[Indirik]

This thread is done. Reposting the verdict for the Magistrates and locking.

A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:

"On the question of jurisdiction, the Magistrates reiterate the opinion expressed in the "Accusations of cheating on the forum" case, which states: "The Magistrates hold that they have jurisdiction in cases arising from the forum, provided that three conditions hold: first, that a connection between a forum account and a user ID exists; second, that forum moderators have already attempted to redress the issue by comment deletion or thread control as necessary; third, that such means have failed to resolve or end the dispute, and it is of such a nature as to arouse general concern or interest." The Magistrates further assert that these three criteria hold for essentially any directly BM-related, BM-originating case between BM players which is brought before them. While we do not intend (and lack any ability) to regularly monitor non-Battlemaster means of communications between players, we hold that if an issue is serious enough that the players involved bring it before us, we may rule on it provided we find that there is a compelling interest to do so.

"The Magistrates also assert that as this case is within their jurisdiction and has been brought before them, there is a compelling interest to rule on it, as the nature of the incident is both striking for the degree of hostility evinced and unprecedented as to the involvement of Social Media beyond the confines of the game or forum. Our hope is to set a precedent regarding player to player interactions that may be used as a guide by players moving forward. To put it simply, please be civil in your interactions with other players regardless of the medium. The Social Contract specifies a minimum standard of behavior toward your fellow players. It is our consensus that this standard should not be narrowly applied only to interactions within the game, but be treated as a general guideline for all interactions with other players of the game that concern the game itself.

"The Magistrates find the accused guilty of violating the Social Contract, which states:

"No verbal attacks, insults or harassment of other players. Err on the side of caution, especially if you don't know the other player well."

The message provided as evidence is clearly a verbal attack and insult. It is also highly venomous in nature, to a degree that is both striking and unusual when it comes to interactions between players. It is the consensus of the Magistrates that there is no place for such attacks in the Battlemaster community. Any provocation that could reasonably justify such a hostile response is likely to be itself a violation of the Social Contract and should be brought before us if the players involved cannot settle their differences in a civil fashion. Ultimately, one of the primary functions of both the Social Contract and the Magistrates is to promote a friendly atmosphere in the game and set minimum standards of behavior for the community to follow. We would therefore be remiss if we did not state clearly and unequivocally that vicious personal attacks directed at other players are not acceptable behavior. As this appears to be a one-time incident, the accused will be given a warning, and it is our hope that he will more carefully consider how he interacts with other players in the future."

Magistrates voted 5-1-1 (with Lavigna abstaining) for a guilty verdict with a warning.

This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.