Government of Yoahtl

Appearance

Case History and Precedents ​

This is a record of all the court cases in Yoahtl. Our court system works via an ever evolving set of decisions, by the Councillors acting in their capacity as judges in legal disputes. The precedent they set in court has the force of law, but can be challenged by concerned parties. If a separate judicial system were to arise, the existing case precedent would carry over to the new judiciary, since the courts would still be of the same legal essence. Not all decisions create precedent, only those trying new matters.

TheOrangeWizard v. 14uu, Aug 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • Confirmed the Extinction Rule that unauthorized construction except for underneath a plot one owned is not considered valid unless the Government has approved of the action.
  • Grief is to be punished by having the griefer clean it up.

1machinemaker1 v. 14uu, Aug 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • Restitution of all items in cases of two-sided disputes is standard practice.
  • The person found to be more guilty in a two-sided dispute can be put on probation (pearled and summoned) if the court believes them to have been at fault.

Crustifer v. SpicyBoy, Oct 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • Theft will be met with forced restitution.
  • Searching a house for contraband is a valid tactic to find evidence for trials.
  • Repeated offenses of the same category can be punished more severely.

Yoahtl v. 14uu, Oct 2017 ​

14uu v. 5point0, Nov 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • An extreme imbalance of capability during a physical altercation means that the person in a stronger position has a responsibility to be more mature.
  • Meming is not an excuse for violence if both parties aren't in on the meme.

Yoahtl v. 1machinemaker1, Nov 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • Insubordination is defined as a refusal to follow instructions when working with public property, sanctioned or unsanctioned.
  • Roads count as public property.

Yoahtl v. Fran, Nov 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • If you are hired by a private citizen to do something and they tell you to stop, you stop.
  • It's not a deathtrap if it's not even finished and serving its intended purpose in the first place.

Yoahtl v. Link2006, Nov 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • No matter the charges, unless you are being directly attacked or the town is being griefed, or it is a hostile foreigner, no player other than Councillors or the Alcuahtl or any person occupying a position of authority to pearl legally authorized by the Council and Alcuahtl may pearl people.

  • If people plead guilty you retain the rights of a citizen unless the Judge explicitly denies them to you as a result of your actions.

1machinemaker1 v. Yoahtl, Nov 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • The Alcuahtl cannot deny an appeal outright, only uphold the decision of the court or come to a new verdict.

Yoahtl v. TheOrangeWizard (and 14uu), Nov 2017 ​

meat312 v. daddy1015, Nov 2017 ​

ShinigamiFTW v. TheOrangeWizard, Nov 2017 ​

TheOrangeWizard v. ShinigamiFTW, Dec 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • Reparations from Government officials can't come from Government storage.

WackyAki v. Meat312, Dec 2017 ​

Precedents:

  • Vote buying is deemed illegitimate campaigning.

Klasikrok v. TheOrangeWizard, Dec 2017 ​

Seekinq v. iOminous, Jan 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • Where a misrepresentation occurs in a disputed transaction, the terms may be adjusted to be as reasonable as possible but still must be within the scope of the original agreement.

TheOrangeWizard (and Amerikkalanein) v. AltRaid, Jan 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • Raid drills are not permitted unless authorised by the Alcuahtl, who must be aware of specific details. Ideally the populace is notified and informed, however this is not strictly required.

  • Precedent set as a result from a court case MUST take priority over Council or Alcuahtl decisions, especially informal decisions that are not voted-in Council Law. This is consistent with “Council 5.3 What is criminal is established primarily through the arbitration of disputes by the courts, and secondarily through specific lines of Council Law.”

Yoahtl v. iOminous, Jan 2018 ​

TheOrangeWizard v. ArowShot, Jan 2018 ​

bgbba v. Squareblob, Apr 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • There is no restriction on the Derelictor General's ability to derelict based on the property owner's resident or citizenship status.

Oddish (and GDAN) v. 5point0, Apr 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • Defendants that refuse to choose a justice will be subject to a Bench Trial.

TheOrangeWizard v. Quauhtli'n'Mia, Apr 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • Newcomers must receive Government approval prior to receiving residence and any citizens who give newcomers an apartment without prior Government approval will be punished with 90 minutes of manual labour.

Dr_Oracle v. TheOrangeWizard, May 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • Citizenship is revoked on grounds of unexplained inactivity or inactivity with insufficient explanation.
  • Improperly revoked citizenship must be restored.

Orinnari v. Wee786Harry, Jun 2018 ​

Wee786Harry v. Wingzero54, Jun 2018 ​

gbrb v. bgbba, Jun 2018 ​

meat312 v. TheOrangeWizard, Jun 2018 ​

Wee786Harry v. lil_wayne, Jun 2018 ​

meat312 v. Wee786Harry, Jun 2018 ​

TheOrangeWizard v. Quauhtli'n'Mia, Jul 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • In cases of stolen items, reparations shall only be granted on appeal if the goods have not been returned as ordered.

  • Whether the killed player had their bed set should be considered with regards to the reasonableness of the murder.

Judges v. bgbba, Aug 2018 ​

bgbba v. TheOrangeWizard, Dec 2018 ​

Precedents:

  • Limiting channel capacity, deleting channels, and banning specific citizens without just cause and consulting the rest of the Government (in cases where the action is not necessary as part of an emergency situation) will be considered a major violation of Article 1 of the Yoahtlan Bill of Rights. Should this occur by a Government member without appropriate permission, harsh penalties may be levied including (but not limited to) judicial review of the position holder's fitness for office.

Dill_Weasel v. TheOrangeWizard, Dec 2018 ​

Aki v. Sventhar, Oct 2019 ​

Precedents:

  • (The Appellate Decision Article 2) The court has found it necessary to define two types of Harassment, In-Game Harassment (abv. IGH) and On-Discord Harassment (abv. ODH).

    • (A) In-Game Harassment shall be defined as:

      Any actions taken within game towards another player that may cause emotional distress, actions that are directed with mal-intent, actions taken in retribution towards another player in a repeated manner, actions that may exclude players from the community due to racial, gender, sexual or other personal matters directed at individuals, and any other actions deemed offensive by the council either by consensus or law.

      Examples of IGH would include:

      • Saying or placing signs in game using slurs, repeated offensive name calling: e.g. racial slurs, homophobic sayings.

      • Repeatedly targeting players using actions that may be tiresome or annoying: e.g. nonstop snowball throwing, punching other players without the intent of murder.

      • Defacing others property

      • e.g. non-damaging grief

      • As well as any other actions deemed offensive by the council either by consensus or law.

    • (B) On-discord Harassment shall be defined as:

      Any actions taken within game towards another player that may cause emotional distress, actions that are directed with mal-intent, actions taken in retribution towards another player in a repeated manner, actions that may exclude players from the community due to racial, gender, sexual or other personal matters directed at individuals, threatening direct messages, repeated spam, repeated bait-posting, harmful trolling, and repeated inconsiderate memeing. As well as any other actions deemed offensive by the council either by consensus or law.

      Examples of ODH would include:

      • Unessasscary name calling involving slurs or inappropriate language, e.g. Racial slurs directed at individuals

      • Spamming the discord with repeated messages or images directed to cause distress to individuals or the community, e.g. posting images multiple times of inappropriate material

      • The posting of certain material with or without intent that may elicit a negative emotional response. e.g. baiting an individual of a known trait to reply to a message in a manner that the individual finds he must “defend” his beliefs

      • Repeated Direct messages of a threatening nature involving in-game actions, e.g. blackmail, or leverage threats

      • As well as any other actions deemed offensive by the council either by consensus or law.

  • (The Appellate Decision Article 3) The severity of harmful repeated actions shall be broken into three categories listed from least severe to most severe.

    • (1) Incidental Harassment: The least severe act of Harassment: any actions where the acting individual repeatedly creates acts that another player finds to be in a harassing manner, and the acting individual may not realize the acts to be in a harassing manner.

    • (2) Minor Harassment: A moderate act of Harassment by an acting individual that causes distress to an individual, and the acting individual continues to repeat actions even after being repeatedly told to cease and desist harassing actions by the harassed individual or others.

    • (3) Major Harassment: A severe act of Harassment by an acting individual done in a cruel and intentional manner done; with the intent of forcing someone to leave the community via means of repeated harassing acts, with the intent to cause someone great emotional distress, and/or with the intent of immense communal disruption.

  • (The Appellate Decision Article 4) Punishments for the act of Harassment

    Punishments for the acts of harassment shall be based upon the severity of the act and issued upon precedent or manner befitting the severity of the act.

    • (Ruling 1) The court finds that expressions that are harassing in nature as defined in [The Appellate Decision Article 2] may not be considered freedom of expression.

    • (Ruling 2) The court finds that membership of the discord platform is non-essential to membership of the in-game community.

Appellate Court Ruling (Original Document)

iOminous v. Yoahtl, Oct 2019 ​

Precedents:

  • If an injunction is filed against somebody’s eligibility for council, they will be investigated and thus removed from the pool if found in breach of our laws and customs on the grounds of citizenship, positions of foreign offices, and non-primary residency for dual citizens, and questions about character and motives.

Orinnari v. Aki, Feb 2020 ​

Precedents:

  • Abuses of Government Power ought to result in immediate removal from Government office.
  • One's citizenship may be temporarily suspended to ensure the fulfilment of a court sentence.

Aivius v. Charlieseeese, Dec 2020 ​

Precedents:

  • Yoahtlans concertedly attempting to recruit other Yoahtlans to foreign nations is to be considered harassment.

Yoahtl v. TheOrangeWizard, Apr 2021 ​

Precedents:

  • Time spent pearled prior to and during the trial can be considered time served if the sentence includes pearl time.

GDAN v. Miller, May 2021 ​

Okx v. spokey_dokey, Jun 2021 ​

Aki v. Shygdsamkd, Jun 2021 ​

Precedents:

  • Time spent pearled during proceedings will not count as time served if the defendant is causing significant and deliberate delay.

Yoahtl v. NeoTide, Sep 2021 ​

Yoahtl v. Okx, Oct 2021 ​

Precedents:

  • Secessions of unincorporated places do not violate Council Act 1.4.
  • Incidental pearlings do not violate the relevant Yoahtl v. Link2006, Nov 2017 precedent.

GDAN v. Minemaster, Oct 2021 ​

Precedents:

  • Pearl time can substitute grief-cleanup if it has already been cleaned up by someone else.

Yoahtl v. Okx, Nov 2021 ​

Supremacy Clarification, Jan 2022 ​

ACCoker v. Swordproof (and Xan), Mar 2023 ​

Arconis (ACCoker and Pantherr) v. Buglesz, Apr 2023 ​

Yoahtl v. RiseOfGruSweep, Jul 2023 ​

Intelligences v. Matt4Fun, Aug 2023 ​

Precedents:

  • The court recognizes the charges of withholding payment and breach of contract as valid.

Nukinmouse01 v. Torynado, Oct 2023 ​

Precedents:

  • The court values emotional and mental wellbeing over virtual assets.
  • Trails relating to the same incident should be consolidated where appropriate.

VilyanZ v. Ezwin, Feb 2024 ​

KrombopulosMichael v. Antow, Mar 2024 ​

Released under the MIT License.

Copyright © 2015-present The Citizens of Yoahtl