WARZONE COURT OF APPEALSOFF-TOPIC DISTRICT
Case No. CV 20-090220
Judge, Jury, and Executioner: the Public!
John Doe and James Doe, Plaintiff v. TBest, DefendantCOMPLAINT
(1) Plaintiffs John and James Doe ("Doe et al.") bring this action to recover for the defamatory statements and abuse of power of Defendant Theopokrakopolonious Bestopholous ("Defendant" or "TBest").
(2) Around 00:13 AM Eastern European Time (EET), the Defendant muted the Plaintiffs for alleged spamming, for 1 and 5 minutes, respectively.
(3) The Plaintiffs were punished and accused of "spamming" for counting from 1 to 50 and 1 to 150, respectively, in Warzone, LLC (Better than Hasbro, Inc.'s RISK® game) ("Warzone")'s Global Chat ("Chat").
(4) Counting from 1 to 50 or 1 to 150 is not "spamming."
(5) Pursuant to the Warzone Terms of Service article XVIII. ("Spam Policy"),
Warzone defines "Spam" as (i) electronic mail messages addressed to a recipient with whom the initiator does not have an existing business or personal relationship or is not sent at the request of, or with the express consent of, the recipient, (ii) messages posted to forum and message boards that are off-topic (unrelated to the topic of discussion), cross-posted to unrelated newsgroups, or posted in excessive volume; or (iii) solicitations posted to chat rooms, or to groups or individuals via Internet relay chat, via the Warzone internal communication systems or "instant messaging" system.
(6) Under the Spam Policy, definition (i) does not apply because messages on Chat do not constitute electronic mail and because users on Chat can be presumed to have consented to received messages from other users on Chat.
(7) Under the Spam Policy, definition (ii) does not apply as Chat is not a forum or message board. Counting in Chat is also not off-topic as counting as high as possible without getting muted by the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("Warzone Chat Moderators") was the topic at the moment.
(8) Under the Spam Policy, definition (iii) does not apply as counting to 50 or 150 is not a solicitation.
(9) Consequently, under the Spam Policy, the actions of neither Plaintiff could be labeled as "spam."COUNT I: DEFAMATION
(10) The Defendant made a statement of fact concerning the Plaintiffs' behavior of counting on Chat. In particular, the Defendant wrongfully claimed the Plaintiffs were spamming.
(11) The Defendant's statement is false because the Plaintiffs were not spamming.
(12) The Defendant's statement is defamatory because it injured the Plaintiffs' reputation and their chances of getting invited to the clan Two Steps From Hell ("TSFH" or "MASTER Clan but without cheaters").
(13) The Defendant is at fault for the statements because the Defendant made the accusation of spam from a position of authority, as a Warzone Chat Moderator.COUNT II: ABUSE OF MODERATION POWER
(14) The Defendant wrongfully punished the Plaintiffs for acts of spam they did not commit.
(15) As a result, the Defendants lost a cumulative 6 minutes of time on Warzone Chat.
(16) The Plaintiffs acknowledge a damage of time cannot be recovered. Therefore the Plaintiffs seek alternative damages in the form of: (i) The Defendant having their username changed from TBest to TWorst; and (ii) The Defendant losing their powers as a Warzone Chat Moderator and being downgraded to a Warzone site Administrator.
Dated: September 2, 2020
Respectfully submitted,General Warzone
WESTERDAL & MERCERhttps://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=9092421466
Edited 9/2/2020 03:42:02