Let's start over from the beginning then in simpler and clearer words...
1) Based on what is clearly stated on those screenshots, Coo1 started to send provoking (?) messages to tojo in order to "convince" him or not to play his game. Anyway reason for this here, as rightly said by our plaintiff tojo, is completely irrelevant - nobody is questioning if it is for X or Y but rather what precisely this action caused on the victim of it, the act in itself. A car was stolen, is it justificable to say that it was because the thief needed to meet his girlfriend and for this reason decided to steal it to make it happen? No, it's not. An offense is an offense regardless of its reason - it is still punishable. What could eventually change is that sometimes, however, it is MITIGATED (read it well because it's NEVER justificable) due to specific circunstamces. This, then, brings us to the second line of my argumentation...
2) If a crime or reprehensible act is never justificable in theory because of its lesionality to the victim, its effects might be mitigated if certain conditions are fulfilled - that is to say that if a person X said X-offensive/provocative words, person Y could retort it with Y-offensive/provocative words due to conditions X-Y implied and with that things would become fair again for both parts, or then in a nutshell: Y would have compensated it by replying it immediately, nullifying X-person damage effects. So once having said that, this explains because tojo's "stfu" isn't punished to the same extent as to coo1's provocations... Tojo was basically defending himself and his image/honor as a player. In other words, what is in jeopardy here is tojo's personal subjective honor and dignity as a player and person above all, that's why I used the expression "animus injuriandi" at my decision before - because tojo was injured and has been affected internally in his subjectivity and honor by being called of "sore loser" a few times by coo1, apart from other unnecessary provocations...
- more info: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/englis ... ention.htm--- Article 11. Right to Privacy ---
1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.
2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
--- AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(Adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969)
3) Also, let me explain and summarize here in a format of story, for those who don't know the basics of laws, what precisely means a norm in legal and social terms...
Our life in society, as many must presume, necessarily demands norms and contractual agreements. And what is it supposed to mean more precisely? It means that even if we had NO norms or laws at all, our world still would need "invisible" norms to maintain our relationships intact and peacefully - they are "invisible rules" and are blended in such a way in our lives that we don't see or abstract clearly and formally them... An example of typical invisible rule/civil contract is the relationship between talker x listener - if a person is talking, the other needs to listen, otherwise nothing useful would come out from this. This is a necessary rule implied then, a consensual rule as we say in civil law. If a woman says NO to a man in any hypothesis (to talk, to play or to have sex), it's a NO. A (social)relation must be consensual, it demands basically an active subject (talker/acceptation of a woman), a passive subject (listener/man who flirted to her) and also an object dealt with consensually by both parts (a matter or specific topic discussed/if she wants to have sex and etc) besides other conditionalities not important to mention here now... Thus, if tojo, as an active subject, says NO to the passive subject coo1 about if he wants to join his game (object treated in this case), it's... a... No. Right? Ok then, with this I believe our situation becomes clearer to understand.
At last, having already contested all the arguments in favor to coo1's above, I feel myself now more capable of substantiating my decision and I'll try to make it in very simple, clear and brief words:
1) Tojo was offended and felt himself very damaged by coo1's provocations as clearly verified in here:
Note that if tojo wasn't offended he wouldn't take time to come here to make an appeal on this case - his act of promoting this topic proofs entirely my point then.Tojo wrote:" That hurted me very much and my day was ruined due to lies and insulting. I was in bad mood for all the rest games "
2) - I, in exercise of my prerogatives as a minister of justice, decided then to call coo1 to provide further clarifications about this here in order to make a future fairer decision as some could note in this statement :
3) Coo1 was informed but simply refused to elucidate it and or to apologize. In fact, it was the exact opposite: he's been very incisive and crude in his words as we could see here :lukwerty wrote: ↑21 Jan 2019, 14:45Tojo's complaint against Coo1 has been duly received and in the face of the animus injuriandi practiced, I, carrying out my duties as a minister of justice, demand ex officio that coo1 provides further clarifications with regard to this formal complaint made against him within 3 days. If this does not happen by the end of this period, appropriate actions will be taken by the Department of Problems Between Players and Justice concerning this case.
Coo1 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 17:42I was surprised that my conversation was considered offensive. I explained my intentions in LEGAL and grammatically correct words. In those pictures posted other players "stfu" many times, which means "shut the Freak up" -- this is far more offensive than '"you are a sore loser." Little boys should not complain and whine...
I don't frequently check this forum.
And here -
and once more in these 2 cases...
To be honest I was seriously expecting that coo1 would apologize... If he did so, I would have completely abolished my mute penalty and everything would normalize again. However, this wasn't the case since he has simply ignored this case many times ("careless" in his words) aggravating the feeling of nonconformity and impunity not only to tojo but also to our community and court. So for this main reason I endorse my decision on penalizing him in 2 weeks mute + 3/4months warning... This last could be revoked if a list with enrolled transgressor players is made and showed in our forum.
Unfortunately I'm not using my computer now, so I don't have much time available for explaining things more clearly... But as I've just bought a laptop recently, I hope that in a few days Ill be here to still explain eventual misunderstandings pendent to this issue.
For now, I remain unconditionally my decision.