PCJC2020-2
The COURT
pegasus Command
Ref: PCJC2020-2
9th May 2020
JUDGEMENT
ACCUSER Office of the President (OOTP)
vs
PROTECTOR sacuroo
Judges
Charles
smearcampaign
Thunder Catalyst
BACKGROUND
-
The Court received a complaint from the Accuser on 4th May 2020, alleging that the Protector had violated rules 1-GM-9, 8-COMR-4 and 13-COC-09.
-
An open hearing took place 5th May 2020, chaired by smearcampaign and Charles. Thunder Catalyst was unavailable on this date. To avoid frustrating the progress, the Protector helpfully consented the hearing being recorded to enable all three judges to form the ruling later.
-
The recording of the hearing was permanently deleted on 6th May 2020, after Thunder Catalyst had listened to it.
-
The Protector alleged that the Accuser broadcast the audio of a domestic dispute via her mic into a Peg Com Discord room, on at least two occasions. Peg Com members were alleged to have overheard these disputes.
-
The Court suggested the Protector to familiarize themselves with the Judicial Rules prior to the hearing.
-
The Protector is not a citizen of Peg Com and didn’t enjoy automatic resource to the Peg Com Court. The OOTP ordered an exception in this case. The member’s lack of citizenship had no bearing on the judicial process; the case was heard, tried and sentenced no differently than if the member was a citizen.
HEARING
-
Evidence was provided to the Court by both the Protector and Accuser prior to the hearing. The Court made the evidence available to both parties simultaneously. The Judges familiarized themselves with the evidence prior to the hearing.
-
The Accuser called two witnesses: Treupath and nexXxus
-
The Accuser also provided written evidence (Discord screenshots) from two other members. The Protector provided written evidence (Discord screenshots) of a conversation that took place immediately after one of the alleged rule violations.
-
Samtastic, nexXxus’s wife, kindly provided a witness statement at the hearing.
-
The Protector was accompanied at the hearing by a friend from outside of Peg Com.
-
The Court would like to thank all present at the hearing for the time they set aside for it and their sound conduct throughout the hearing.
-
The hearing explored the circumstances and background to the domestic disputes that had been overheard by other members, and any negative impact experienced by the members who overheard them.
JUDGEMENT
-
The Judges discussed the case on 7th May 2020 for nearly three hours, then examined and voted on each alleged rule violation. A majority vote is required (at least 2 of the 3 judges) to carry a ruling.
-
8-COMR-4. Should you want to talk to a member about something you feel may be offensive, ask other members in the room if they have any issue with non-game chat. If so, just move to another room. We are all adults, and this is not an attempt to control topics, but to help respect the diversity we have in the guild.
-
The Judges voted unanimously that the Protector did not violate 8-COMR-4. The bearing this rule has on the case is tenuous. The ordinary understanding of the wording of the rule is that it applies to the subject matter and conversations rather than disputes with third parties that are overhead on Discord.
-
13-COC-09. Officers shall refrain from any and all conduct that is either disruptive or detrimental to any operation or the guild.
-
The Judges voted unanimously that 13-COC-09 was breached by the Protector on both occasions discussed in the hearing. She was an Officer at the time of the two incidents discussed in the hearing, and the operations of the guild were disrupted.
-
1-GM-09. All members should recognize as a member of Peg Com they are also a representative of the guild in any game they play. As such, any behavior or action that is uncivil and/or disruptive to other members or in said game, may be met with sanction up to removal from the guild. A screen shot, audio recording, or other appropriate evidence shall be required for enforcement of this rule.
-
The Judges voted unanimously that 1-GM-09 was breached by the Protector on both occasions discussed in the hearing.
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
-
Peg Com has members around the globe who are therefore subject too a wide variety of legal frameworks and obligations, such as mandatory reporting. Overhearing domestic disputes of this nature, especially those that give rise to police involvement, could potentially give members legal obligations as witnesses.
-
Peg Com’s purpose is to provide a place or recreation. That purpose is incompatible with negotiating the pitfalls of domestic disputes that other members are engaged in.
-
The Protector accepts that she deliberately left her microphone open on one of the said occasions, in the hope that other members hearing the dispute would help to calm or shorten it.
-
The domestic disputes have been particularly unpleasant for those who have overheard them. nexXxus’s wife was particularly disturbed by what she overheard. If more vulnerable members of PegCom had overheard these disputes, it would likely have had a more serious personal impact on them.
-
The Judges accept that the disputes themselves are outside of the control of the Protector and believe that she has neither initiated them nor amplified them. This means that the Protector may be unable to prevent a further incident.
MITIGATING FACTORS
-
The Protector is not at fault for being a party to the domestic dispute itself and the Court recognizes the particularly unpleasant circumstances that the Protector is experiencing.
-
The evidence demonstrates that the Protector actively apologized to someone who had inadvertently overheard one of the domestic disputes.
-
The members who overheard these disputes were at the time, focused on the health of their fellow community members.
-
The Protector showed good conduct before and during the hearing and engaged with the process.
-
The order that created the Protector’s Officer role specified that the role entailed regular 1-2-1 reviews with the Supreme Commander. The Court finds that these have not taken place and that the incumbent Supreme Commander should have directed the Protector to take any possible precaution against members overhearing further domestic disputes.
PENALTIES
-
Penalties are for the purpose of deterrence, reformation, retribution, reparation, vindication, or protection. The Judges have select this penalty primarily for the protections of our 300+ members. This should not be interpreted as the Protector being penalized for willfully or negligently causing the said disputes.
-
The Judges voted unanimously to recommend to the Quorum that they remove the Protector from Peg Com.
-
As the Protector’s circumstances will hopefully improve, we recommend to the Quorum that the Protector is eligible to re-join Peg Com on 1st January 2021, subject to the usual membership application process.
-
The Judges rigorously explored less severe penalties. Unfortunately, other penalties would lessen the protection of Peg Com members, hinder Peg Com operations, particularly OP’s, and risk stigmatizing the member. If the Quorum accept our recommendations, the proverbial door won’t be permanently closed and we may be able to enjoy the Protector’s company again, should she wish it.