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.
