Now, this did occur on the defendant's popular twitch channel and it happened to occur during a stream of "Doki Doki Literature Club" when Tyler had an all-time high of eight viewers watching. The majority of his viewers being formers such as:
@Shadow
@The Hound
@Dunsparce
@Requiem
@Jeroth
While I am proud to be a member of this great community, my business conducted in the twitch.tv domain is not provided explicitly for forumers. I offer a free service through my stream and promote it through 11 different channels, only 3 of which are related to the forum community. (Those 3 channels being this forum itself, the official Mach Discord server, and the unofficial Mach Discord server).It's up to you, Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider, on whether this is fit for the forum court. Considering that it was a stream by a forumer, for forumers, and on a stream that is one or the only ones to be sponsored and listed *ON* these forums. I believe that this case is fit for this court.
Aside from the fact that he's already placed evidence that hasn't been approved yet, let me take a look at it. It clearly says that there were 41 views. Views. Not viewers. On the first row of the twitch streams, he had a maximum viewer group of 11. This is excluding the fact that @Colonel Thunder represents two of these - hotty mcbotty and dangervideogames. Which brings us down to 9 unique viewers during that stream.As the court may see from the above documentation, there were 41 viewers during the stream where the alleged bamboozling took place. The individuals named by the prosecution were the only members of this community present.
My stream averages about 20 viewers per stream, the minority of which are forumers. Furthermore, my stream is a service that has been provided to 3,375 individuals in total. Members of this community make up less than 30 of these individuals.
41 views mean there were 41 viewers, they just weren't all there at once. Furthermore, Twitch statistics disregard the viewership of the streamer, meaning there there was an average of 10 unique viewers at any given point during the stream. Given that this community has historically regarded robots as independent entities (Tolvan, 13thforswarn, the spambots that make threads that community members say hello to) this number may actually be 11.It clearly says that there were 41 views. Views. Not viewers. On the first row of the twitch streams, he had a maximum viewer group of 11. This is excluding the fact that @Colonel Thunder represents two of these - hotty mcbotty and dangervideogames. Which brings us down to 9 unique viewers during that stream.
This is a false statement, your Honor. Danny, who's Twitch account is geek2games, was not present for this event. My opponent is mistaking one of my thousands of non-Mach Entertainment viewers, dannythesloth7, as Danny.I also forgot to add that @Danny and @coolpool2 were also there.
Your Honor, the prosecutor is once again providing incomplete evidence.While I don't know if I can embed this, I have also video evidence to submit to the court of the dastardly bamboozling.
https://clips.twitch.tv/VainRelatedGoblinHoneyBadger
...we are investigating a matter of one forumer's alleged malicious and harmful behavior towards another forumer.
It's mobile fees and charges in relation to viewing it on a cellphone on 4G. Colonel Thunder is attempting to compare his digital currency to that of USD.Twitch said:5. Use of Devices and Services
Access to the Twitch Services may require the use of your personal computer or mobile device, as well as communications with or use of space on such devices. You are responsible for any Internet connection or mobile fees and charges that you incur when accessing the Twitch Services.
OBJECTION!Aside from the agreement, the plaintiff has a long history of participating in gambling of the fictional currency that exists within my Twitch stream. The plaintiff, who gathers Danger either by idling in the stream or gambling it, has gained and lost hundreds of Danger through processes similar to the !bamboozle command invoked in the video clip I provided earlier in the case.
A full list of products on which Danger can be spent can be found beneath the large rectangular image on my Twitch channel.
As the court can see, many of these commands include games of chance as well as commands in which the minor bamboozlement of the buyer is the product itself.
By viewing the recording of the stream here (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/228874847) and viewing from 1:14:57 1:16:39, all parties can clearly see both the entire incident of the alleged bamboozling as well as who was present and who was speaking.
Minor Trickery? It was double the cost that was expected. That was 25 minutes in a stream.The plaintiff has no valid reason to believe that they would receive anything other than opt-in minor trickery by activating the command.
Following that, let us define what bamboozling is:The Court defines Malicious Bamboozling as: Intentionally bamboozling a fellow Forumer to the detriment of the offended party. (Intentionally bamboozling a fellow Forumer without being fully aware of the gravity of the consequences of such bamboozling, on the other hand, would fall under Reckless Bamboozling instead.)
Bamboozle said:: to deceive by underhanded methods : dupe, hoodwink
- I got bamboozled by the salesperson to buy a more expensive model.
...Does the court recognize trial by combat?