Continuous The Forum Court (Tirin v. Thunder: Concluded)
- Thread starter Easy
- Start date
Forumer @Firedemon is hereby fined 10 Likes for contempt of Court, and also for his complete inability to take a fucking hint.
Anyone else in the Peanut Gallery, who feels he or she has some valuable new insight to contribute, is asked to kindly take it to a different thread, or otherwise save it for deliberation. Try making a "shit tier amateur stand-up comedy" thread to show off your amazing wit in, for example.
Anyone else in the Peanut Gallery, who feels he or she has some valuable new insight to contribute, is asked to kindly take it to a different thread, or otherwise save it for deliberation. Try making a "shit tier amateur stand-up comedy" thread to show off your amazing wit in, for example.
Opening Statement, Defendant:
Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider, gentlemen, and Ibix...I hope to resolve these frivolous accusations as quickly as possible so as not to waste the court's time with proceedings.
It is my understanding that Moderator Jeroth charges me with an account of Malicious Bamboozling, an undefined term for which there is no historical precedent in this district.
Furthermore, this supposed "bamboozlement" occurred fully within the twitch.tv domain, regarding a currency that only exists within the twitch.tv domain. I would not be so bold as to tell the court where its own jurisdiction ends. However, if this trial should proceed further I believe we need to define whether the charges even fall within the jurisdiction of the good judge sitting before us.
Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider, gentlemen, and Ibix...I hope to resolve these frivolous accusations as quickly as possible so as not to waste the court's time with proceedings.
It is my understanding that Moderator Jeroth charges me with an account of Malicious Bamboozling, an undefined term for which there is no historical precedent in this district.
Furthermore, this supposed "bamboozlement" occurred fully within the twitch.tv domain, regarding a currency that only exists within the twitch.tv domain. I would not be so bold as to tell the court where its own jurisdiction ends. However, if this trial should proceed further I believe we need to define whether the charges even fall within the jurisdiction of the good judge sitting before us.
Opening Statement, Plaintiff:
Gentlemen of the Forums. Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider.
You're already being bamboozled. This man is going to spin you a nice sweater of lies. You'll put it on to feel all warm and fuzzy, but the only thing fuzzy about it are the spiders that are also in said sweater. And @Colonel Thunder will laugh at you. Because that's the type of man he is and I'll prove that within this trial.
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
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.
Gentlemen of the Forums. Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider.
You're already being bamboozled. This man is going to spin you a nice sweater of lies. You'll put it on to feel all warm and fuzzy, but the only thing fuzzy about it are the spiders that are also in said sweater. And @Colonel Thunder will laugh at you. Because that's the type of man he is and I'll prove that within this trial.
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
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.
Objection!
Your Honor, I recognize the grounds for prosecution are sufficient to allow this case be tried based on what the plaintiff has said. However, I would like to point out that the plaintiff has already made multiple false statements that favor his interpretation of events.
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. This leads me to my next point.
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.
Additional documentation may be provided upon request to certify these claims.
The prosecution's statements thus far do not reflect the realities of my business, and are clearly aimed towards making the free service I provide appear to be more connected to the Mach Entertainment community than is true.
With this being said, I would politely ask that the court consider these facts before ruling that the grounds for prosecution are sufficient to allow this case be tried.
Your Honor, I recognize the grounds for prosecution are sufficient to allow this case be tried based on what the plaintiff has said. However, I would like to point out that the plaintiff has already made multiple false statements that favor his interpretation of events.
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. This leads me to my next point.
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).
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.
Additional documentation may be provided upon request to certify these claims.
The prosecution's statements thus far do not reflect the realities of my business, and are clearly aimed towards making the free service I provide appear to be more connected to the Mach Entertainment community than is true.
With this being said, I would politely ask that the court consider these facts before ruling that the grounds for prosecution are sufficient to allow this case be tried.
Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider,
The defendant is clearly in the wrong and is already attempting yet another malicious bamboozle. Maybe it's a chronic mental illness where he's forced to trick others?
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.
Your average views before you gave me a heckin' bad bamboozlin' were 16. On that dark day, where I was embarrassed, your views doubled. However, that does not accurately depict how long they stayed. There's a chance that someone decided to watch it for only a minute before leaving!
Tackling the maximum viewer count of 11 or unique chatters of 15, I went through the video log of that day.
I also forgot to add that @Danny and @coolpool2 were also there.
That totals the viewership to about six, which makes Mach Entertainment a fair portion of his streams!
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
Conveniently, the clip name is unintentionally related to @Colonel Thunder
I kindly ask that the court review @Colonel Thunder and his statement unless you share the same fate as me: being maliciously and ruthlessly bamboozled.
Your Honor, this is getting out of hand. I ask that the prosecutor refrains from posting images, gifs, and music that are not related to this case. Such media negatively effect the clarity of these proceedings and serve as an emotional appeal to excite those observing the case. Furthermore...
That being said, I am not denying that a significant percent of my viewers who witnessed the alleged bamboozling were forumers. I am denying that my stream services the Mach Entertainment community with any form of exclusivity or special privilege, and thusly may not be eligible for trial in this district. The prosecutor has tried to convince the jury otherwise.
This is yet another instance of the prosecutor presenting false information, whether intentionally or not.
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.
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.
That being said, I am not denying that a significant percent of my viewers who witnessed the alleged bamboozling were forumers. I am denying that my stream services the Mach Entertainment community with any form of exclusivity or special privilege, and thusly may not be eligible for trial in this district. The prosecutor has tried to convince the jury otherwise.
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.
This is yet another instance of the prosecutor presenting false information, whether intentionally or not.
Your Honor, the prosecutor is once again providing incomplete evidence.
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.
Court recognizes that there is reason to dispute the idea that the stream in question may be considered as forum proper. However, we are investigating a matter of one forumer's alleged malicious and harmful behavior towards another forumer. This is not necessarily something that would only be addressed when the incident takes place on the forums themselves, particularly given that the DangerVideoGames stream is openly advertised on Mach and associated channels.
I accept the ruling of the court in this regard.
My next question is in regard to the nature of the crime I am accused of. Does the court define Malicious Bamboozling as stated below?
My next question is in regard to the nature of the crime I am accused of. Does the court define Malicious Bamboozling as stated below?
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.)
Thank you, your Honor.
It is my understanding that the definition provided does not fit the reality of this incident.
Exhibit A
While it is true that the plaintiff purchased a product for more fictional currency (Danger) than they intended, this was done in a gambling environment that the plaintiff had previously consented to.
I cite Section 5, Line 2 of the Twitch Terms of Service; "You are responsible for any Internet connection or mobile fees and charges that you incur when accessing the Twitch Services."
The plaintiff agreed to this term and condition upon creating a Twitch account.
Exhibit B
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.
For example, the !cake command (which is used surprisingly frequently) does not grant the buyer virtual cake. Instead, they are left with a message indicating that the command does not do anything, and that a false claim had been made. This is a reference to an old meme, which amuses the buyer and/or the other viewers on the stream.
The !bamboozle command is very similar. The concept of purchasing bamboozle insurance and thereby being bamboozled is a known joke of rather poor quality, which befits the rest of the stream's content. The plaintiff has no valid reason to believe that they would receive anything other than opt-in minor trickery by activating the command. This is accentuated by the video clip in which, during my advertisement of the !bamboozle command, co-host Blooky clearly suggests to the viewers that purchasing bamboozle insurance may lead to a result other than what is being stated.
--
While I have not spoken regarding all reasons why Malicious Bamboozlement does not fit this incident, I would like to give the other parties involved time to reflect on these Exhibits and share their own findings.
Thank you for your time.
It is my understanding that the definition provided does not fit the reality of this incident.
Exhibit A
While it is true that the plaintiff purchased a product for more fictional currency (Danger) than they intended, this was done in a gambling environment that the plaintiff had previously consented to.
I cite Section 5, Line 2 of the Twitch Terms of Service; "You are responsible for any Internet connection or mobile fees and charges that you incur when accessing the Twitch Services."
The plaintiff agreed to this term and condition upon creating a Twitch account.
Exhibit B
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.
For example, the !cake command (which is used surprisingly frequently) does not grant the buyer virtual cake. Instead, they are left with a message indicating that the command does not do anything, and that a false claim had been made. This is a reference to an old meme, which amuses the buyer and/or the other viewers on the stream.
The !bamboozle command is very similar. The concept of purchasing bamboozle insurance and thereby being bamboozled is a known joke of rather poor quality, which befits the rest of the stream's content. The plaintiff has no valid reason to believe that they would receive anything other than opt-in minor trickery by activating the command. This is accentuated by the video clip in which, during my advertisement of the !bamboozle command, co-host Blooky clearly suggests to the viewers that purchasing bamboozle insurance may lead to a result other than what is being stated.
--
While I have not spoken regarding all reasons why Malicious Bamboozlement does not fit this incident, I would like to give the other parties involved time to reflect on these Exhibits and share their own findings.
Thank you for your time.
OBJECTION!
Your honor, the defendant is attempting to swiftly bamboozle you yet again. Obscuring the truth behind select phrases. The full Twitch section 5 article reads the following:
So, TC. Are you saying that I was asking for it? Just because I have a habit of gambling, it's MY fault that I was bamboozled?
Let me paint this picture as clearly as possible.
Referring to the VOD that was presented here (albeit not accepted into evidence yet.)
At one hour, fifteen minutes and ten seconds, DangerVideoGames host, Tyler "Ruse Cruise" Bamboozle proceeds to state that Bamboozle insurance is 25 danger. While cross-referencing his stream, the command is listed at 25 danger. On purchasing said command usage, I was charged 50 danger.
For now, I'd like to refer to what the Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider had said.
To go by Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider's definition: Intentionally deceiving a forumer to the detriment of the offended party.
In this case, I think it's safe to say it is clear-cut that Tyler had KNOWN that it would cost 50 danger and chose to advertise it as such. Only Tyler knows the true values of the commands and their costs and sought out to bamboozle his viewers. Thus: Tyler maliciously bamboozled me.
Your honor, the defendant is attempting to swiftly bamboozle you yet again. Obscuring the truth behind select phrases. The full Twitch section 5 article reads the following:
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:
OBJECTION!
So, TC. Are you saying that I was asking for it? Just because I have a habit of gambling, it's MY fault that I was bamboozled?
Let me paint this picture as clearly as possible.
Referring to the VOD that was presented here (albeit not accepted into evidence yet.)
At one hour, fifteen minutes and ten seconds, DangerVideoGames host, Tyler "Ruse Cruise" Bamboozle proceeds to state that Bamboozle insurance is 25 danger. While cross-referencing his stream, the command is listed at 25 danger. On purchasing said command usage, I was charged 50 danger.
Minor Trickery? It was double the cost that was expected. That was 25 minutes in a stream.
For now, I'd like to refer to what the Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider had said.
Following that, let us define what bamboozling is:
Bamboozle said:
To go by Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider's definition: Intentionally deceiving a forumer to the detriment of the offended party.
In this case, I think it's safe to say it is clear-cut that Tyler had KNOWN that it would cost 50 danger and chose to advertise it as such. Only Tyler knows the true values of the commands and their costs and sought out to bamboozle his viewers. Thus: Tyler maliciously bamboozled me.
I'll not erase the past for Jeroth's error. And with Jeroth's CHA score, I know I'll get no justice here.
So I will let the gods decide my fate.
I demand a trial by combat.
So I will let the gods decide my fate.
I demand a trial by combat.
@Jeroth
Having been challenged to single combat, you may now exercise your right to choice of weapons. (Assuming you're not gonna film yourself flying down to California and beating the shit out of TC, pick a game to play him at instead.)
@Jeroth @Colonel Thunder
Once the nature of the challenge has been decided, you both may also nominate a Champion to fight in your place, providing he or she accepts.
Having been challenged to single combat, you may now exercise your right to choice of weapons. (Assuming you're not gonna film yourself flying down to California and beating the shit out of TC, pick a game to play him at instead.)
@Jeroth @Colonel Thunder
Once the nature of the challenge has been decided, you both may also nominate a Champion to fight in your place, providing he or she accepts.
