WARZONE COURT OF APPEALS
OFF-TOPIC DISTRICT

---

Case No. CV 20-090220
Judge, Jury, and Executioner: the Public!

---

John Doe and James Doe, Plaintiff v. TBest, Defendant

COMPLAINT
(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.

- https://www.warzone.com/termsofservice

(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 (#924214)
WESTERDAL & MERCER
https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=9092421466

Edited 9/2/2020 03:42:02

My clients have authorized me to include transcripts of the messages for which TBest wrongfully accused them of spamming and punished them.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1: Allegedly Offending Statements of John Doe

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

---

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2: Allegedly Offending Statements of James Doe

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150

Edited 9/2/2020 03:58:02

The messages fall under the excessive volume clause.

This what I've gathered from looking at chat logs:
The one of 1 min timeout sent 61 spam messages between 9/1/2020 9/1/2020 23:00:55 and 23:13:51 UTC.
The one of 5 mins timeout sent 152 spam messages between 9/1/2020 9/1/2020 23:00:55 and 23:13:51 UTC.

The account who received the 5 min timeout messaged the official WZ Discord asking for a mod time stop the spam.

That account also said the following in chat:
9/1/2020 23:14:49 UTC can I get muted too just as acknowledgement of my feat?
9/1/2020 23:14:50 UTC 2min please
9/1/2020 23:14:55 UTC so I can show I am twice as good as max

There is no option to timeout for 2 mins. Next up is 5 mins. Even if that player's messages are not classified as spam, that player asked for and got a timeout because that's what that account wanted. There is nothing right or wrong about that.

The account who received the 1 min timeout later sent 18 spam messages between 9/2/2020 02:52:59 and 9/2/2020 02:53:11 UTC with 18 spam messages. No mods were in chat to give a timeout.

Dear ■:

Are you representing the Defendant? Do you intend your most recent communication to be the Defendant's Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint? Please clarify. At the moment, my clients fully object to your statement as it is hearsay with no chain of custody established to verify the authenticity of those alleged messages.

Sincerely,
General Warzone (#924214)
WESTERDAL & MERCER
https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=9092421466