Offensive behaviour by Coo1

New EE2 Government (since: 01.03.2014), everything about the EE2 management. You can report other players here.
User avatar
lukwerty
Posts: 397
Joined: 11 Sep 2010, 11:21

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by lukwerty » 28 Jan 2019, 01:34

As it seems my decision wasn't substantially clear enough for many here (what, in my personal opinion, is plausible since I was and still am very busy last days and I couldn't substantiate it very well for lack of time), so this made me to come here again to tackle and rectify this issue once and for all.

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...
--- 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)
- more info: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/englis ... ention.htm

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:
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 :( "
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.

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 :
lukwerty wrote:
21 Jan 2019, 14:45
Tojo'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.
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 :
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 17:42
I 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 -
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 22:32
Thanks I appreciate, even though I could care less...

and once more in these 2 cases...
Coo1 wrote:
27 Jan 2019, 01:46
I care less
---
Coo1 wrote:
27 Jan 2019, 12:50
Are you all delirious? It is OK with me not to be able to chat. Anyway not much gaming lately...

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.


User avatar
Dr.MonaLisa
High Representative
Posts: 7369
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 11:21
Location: Poland

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Dr.MonaLisa » 28 Jan 2019, 02:15

Thank you Lukwert for the punishment argumentation.

I'd like to add some additional information:
- We separate Ministry of Game Affairs reports on:
* Players Reports (posted by any EE2 players)
* Ex officio Reports (posted by the Ministers who see that third-party players break rules)

In this case, Tojo posted a report as an ordinary player. Therefore we do not need to analyze insults and intentions. The most important thing is, that the player felt offended. If he didn't understand "sore loser" as a joke or provocation, but instead his day was ruined (and decided to write a long report), then the decision could not be different than mute awaiting for an apology.

The Ministry of Game Affairs would never punish players for such insults ex officio, as stated in: viewtopic.php?p=20520#p20520
Just to make things clear:
- I'm against the full censorship of the Lobby. Insults like "u stupid", "u retard", "fuck you" are normal in Multiplayer communities, so this isn't something punishable. Players have rights to throw their emotions, but everything has it's limits....
- Of course if those insults are abused (like not only when you're angry), then it's punishable.
- The most intolerant on the Lobby are racists insults, about other players countries, about other player's family members, etc. Then it goes on an unacceptable level where an ingerence of moderators is needed.
I hope it's all clear now.
Best regards,
Dr.MonaLisa
Ministry of Game Affairs
Department of Control and Complains

User avatar
Matty
Posts: 510
Joined: 18 Jun 2010, 11:21
Location: Italy

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Matty » 28 Jan 2019, 03:04

I appreciate all people's effort here to analyze this case, however I do not agree at all about the intention part. Law will always take intention into consideration, and this is undeniable.
A kills B because this pissed him off
A kills B in self defense
The act is the same (A killed B), but the intention is different, reason for which law would give completely different punishments.
Intention just cannot be ignored, and when the intention is in doubt, that benefit will, by law, go to the accused.

Then, as I said earlier, I don't like the mentality behind this. Sometimes we should think more about the definition and purpose of things instead of just doing our usual job. I mean... Ministers exist to maximize collective well-being, and you know it as well, but in the right moment you use a threating approach towards Coo1, asking for explanations, you are dividing Tojo and Coo1 making the fracture bigger and bigger, and moving away the best scenario, that would have been them clarifying each other.
Something like "Are you sure he was serious about the "sore loser" thing and not trying just to play with you?" would have already been better. I am not saying that would have worked, but with the finger already pointed towards Coo1, his pride was more likely to do the rest, as it happened.

User avatar
Dr.MonaLisa
High Representative
Posts: 7369
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 11:21
Location: Poland

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Dr.MonaLisa » 28 Jan 2019, 04:54

The act is the same (A killed B), but the intention is different, reason for which law would give completely different punishments.
Intention just cannot be ignored, and when the intention is in doubt, that benefit will, by law, go to the accused.
Whatever intentions are, if someone (Tojo) in this case felt offended, and the case got posted on the highest possible level (Ministry of Game Affairs subforum), then it would be normal to hear "I'm sorry if you felt offended".

Instead we get:
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 17:42
Little boys should not complain and whine...
Coo1 wrote:
27 Jan 2019, 01:46
I care less
Coo1 wrote:
27 Jan 2019, 12:50
Are you all delirious? It is OK with me not to be able to chat.
I'm pretty sure those last messages are considered more mean than the actual report. And that's the case of the actual mute.
Right after I read about this punishment I contacted Department of Justice for explanations. In my opinion it was too much, but then Lukwert explained that didn't hear any apology. I still think this punishment is pretty strong, but I agree with Minister's arguments on it. If it was longer than 1 month I would probably block this decision and send for voting in the Crisis Staff subforum.
Best regards,
Dr.MonaLisa
Ministry of Game Affairs
Department of Control and Complains

User avatar
Coo1
Posts: 36
Joined: 29 Jan 2017, 16:21

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Coo1 » 28 Jan 2019, 05:24

I indeed felt sorry for Tojo -- with or without your attention.

User avatar
Dr.MonaLisa
High Representative
Posts: 7369
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 11:21
Location: Poland

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Dr.MonaLisa » 28 Jan 2019, 05:58

You felt sorry because he didn't want to play your setts anymore? Or felt sorry after the report?

Please, if you want to apology him for those (reported) words used - please do it using the normal, clear sentence. The Department of Justice will then reduce or remove the mute, because the case will be simply solved.
Best regards,
Dr.MonaLisa
Ministry of Game Affairs
Department of Control and Complains

User avatar
Tojo
Posts: 47
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 11:22
Location: Slovenia

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Tojo » 28 Jan 2019, 10:38

lukwerty wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 01:34
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.
Exactly. I just wanted to prevent more ruined days.
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 17:42
I was surprised that my conversation was considered offensive.
I understand if someone calls me "a retard", "noob", "idiot" and "loser" if I for example played a game badly, made mistake while hosting a game, ...
I don't feel offended with that. Not even slightly. It would be said with clear reasons.

The incident occurred after game with R. Empire. I had no conversation with Coo1 before that. So when I ended the game and went to another room, Coo1 just started to write me messages out of nowhere with insults and lies and I had no idea what is going on. That Coo1, is offensive behaviour for me. You had no reason to attack me.

Lie #1:
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 17:42
In those pictures posted other players "stfu" many times
I said it only once.

Lie #2
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 17:42
which means "shut the Freak up"
From the pictures I was clearly defending myself from a lie being told about posting the game.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stfu
"so stfu" clearly means "Shut the fuck up" +"don't tell lies" + "leave me alone" in that case with Coo1. It is the first time I heard someone to interpretate "f" as a "freak".
Coo1 wrote:
26 Jan 2019, 17:42
this is far more offensive than '"you are a sore loser."
It is offensive defending yourself? No. Even no insult was said from my side. Here Coo1 just tries to miss lead everyone who was reading the topic from the real point of it.

------
lukwerty wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 01:34
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.
In that conversation we had, he never asked: "Want to play a game?" . None question about it was asked. So it's even clearer now.
Matty wrote:
27 Jan 2019, 02:38
He was just teasing Tojo in order to convince him to play his game. It's not much different from the "1v1 me I'll destroy you!"
He started with "Loser" straight forward with thesis of me wanting his games (?) but cannot (?). And right away changed the topic and started provoking with lies together with insults.
"1v1 me I'll destroy you!" is pretty much different. Reply on that would be: "hahah okay. Let's see!"
So:
Tojo wrote:
20 Jan 2019, 15:45
Suddenly Coo1 started to send me really offensive messages, provoking for no reason and insulting. Maybe the reason was lack of players in his room
That statement of lack of players in his room was just a guessing from me.
And with that said maybe he only tried to provoke me to react on his so called "soft insults" and lies with my stronger insults, just to report me. I'm guessing again. Will never know.

User avatar
Coo1
Posts: 36
Joined: 29 Jan 2017, 16:21

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Coo1 » 28 Jan 2019, 16:06

AHA-A !!! "Tojo" admits "STFU-ing" me...

That is the only one registered instance in the shown picture, but how many times was it done before and/or after, being "un-registered?"
Even once, this offensive statement feels to me like being slapped on my cheek (NOT gluteus maximus, don't even think about it!)
I felt offended, totally humiliated, undeserved!

So who is totally, angelically, innocently clean in this mess? Me, who expressed that the other player loses games with uneasy feelings, which was presented in a nice and correct manner, or the other player who openly cursed at me and wanted me to be diminished with own domination? Should I just let the other cheek be slapped (again NOT gluteus maximus, don't even think about it!) ? O-ops! Please, I hope not a single person would feel offended!

I do reserve my free speech rights to express what I think, even though others may or may not feel "offended." I am not responsible for other's emotional states.
When the one-sided judgement will stop?

Post Scriptum
(a) May I call player "Tojo" "a retard", "noob", "idiot" and "loser" ? It seems, as player "Tojo" admits, those words are not offending. What is wrong by adding the word "sore" to the word "loser?" Is "a retarded noob and idiot loser" better than than just plain "sore loser?"

(b) Lie #2 STFU means exactly what it meas -- see attached reference, I mentioned "Freak" because it is more polite than vulgar "FUCK"

(c) "That statement of lack of players in his room was just a guessing from me. And with that said maybe he only tried to provoke me to react on his so called "soft insults" and lies with my stronger insults, just to report me. I'm guessing again. Will never know."

The statement (c) strongly shows other's intent of vengeance and insults toward me, let me guess, for lost game(s)? Again I am only guessing.... (^_^)
As I sign of good complicit behavior I am offering unlimited game re-matches

Players of the world -- unite! Revolt against despotism!
PEACE BE UPON US ALL! (P-B-U-U-A)

Added after 2 hours 3 minutes 14 seconds:
I think that I should be feeling a little guilty, because a person felt offended by me. From the bottom of my heart I did not want to offend anyone, truly. Dear player Tojo, I am very sorry. I did not mean to agitate you, just a friendly talk. I wanted to show how easy it is to manipulate words and present it in questionable manner. I still offer you unlimited rematch games!
Peace be upon us! PBUUA!
Attachments
stfu.png
stfu.png (39.7 KiB) Viewed 118 times

User avatar
Dr.MonaLisa
High Representative
Posts: 7369
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 11:21
Location: Poland

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Dr.MonaLisa » 28 Jan 2019, 19:49

Coo1 wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 18:09
That is the only one registered instance in the shown picture, but how many times was it done before and/or after, being "un-registered?"
Please tell me if you wish to share the private messages log between you and Tojo on that day. This can be done on clear request or when there is no other way to prove the statement.
Coo1 wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 18:09
So who is totally, angelically, innocently clean in this mess? Me, who expressed that the other player loses games with uneasy feelings
If you bring up such thing, then please let's keep the facts.
The Rating System log shows:
https://www.ee2.eu/multiplayer/rating/? ... 6B467CE9E7
tojocoo1rating1.PNG
tojocoo1rating1.PNG (297.16 KiB) Viewed 109 times
How does it prove that someone is the "sore loser"? Skipping the fact that the lost game still doesn't give a reason to be called this way.
Coo1 wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 18:09


Added after 2 hours 3 minutes 14 seconds:
I think that I should be feeling a little guilty, because a person felt offended by me. From the bottom of my heart I did not want to offend anyone, truly. Dear player Tojo, I am very sorry. I did not mean to agitate you, just a friendly talk. I wanted to show how easy it is to manipulate words and present it in questionable manner. I still offer you unlimited rematch games!
Peace be upon us! PBUUA!
Thanks for the apology. I think it's enough to solve this case and that's how it should be done at start, to prevent punishments.
I'll ask the Department of Justice to re-check this case in extraordinary mode and consider removing the punishment, which is totally unnecessary now.
Best regards,
Dr.MonaLisa
Ministry of Game Affairs
Department of Control and Complains

User avatar
Tojo
Posts: 47
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 11:22
Location: Slovenia

Re: Offensive behaviour by Coo1

Post by Tojo » 28 Jan 2019, 23:24

On the Coo1's post above it is clearly visible how arrogant the player is. All the time writing statements without any proves. He tries to miss lead the judge with every word. Using sarcasm together with lies to make a fool out of me.
Coo1 wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 18:09
AHA-A !!! "Tojo" admits "STFU-ing" me...
Dear Coo1, I posted picture of me saying stfu. I could hide it if wanted. It is very clear why I said it but you seems to be too proud and full of ego to even read the whole sentence and keep using a part of sentences to make further provocations. Shame on you.
You deserve a mute you proved that in this topic. I am very happy that MP community can now have 2 peaceful weeks in lobby.
Anyway tnx for apology but you ruined it with all the non senses said before and after that.

Locked

Return to “Ministry of Game Affairs of the Empire Earth II Community”