Jeep’s Chat Trial [Resolved]


Hello, Pzk here. The reason I made the vote previous to this one was to administer a more serious punishment for his crimes than the one given (1 minute ban). The reason for this being that the problem never stops or changes, and continues, no matter how many times he is declared guilty. It is stated in the laws that a consistent abuse of a low-punishment offense constitutes a more serious punishment. Jeepdino has abused on the chat many times, and if there are any witnesses that feel like they have to give their accounts, please do so. If we treat this like an isolated incident, out of context with what his previous crimes have been, the legal punishment would be a warning. The previous vote was to figure out whether or not to take this abuse in context or out of context.

Plaintiff(s): Superkiller (possibly Nighthawk)

Defendant: Jeepdino

Moderator (Judge): Nickman101 

Accusation: Abuse of chat powers by defendant Jeepdino.

Evidence For:


Evidence Against:

I was trying to get Nighthawk’s attention, (he was afk) noises weren’t working, so I guested him for a millisecond and re-ownered him, (Like Aj did) he was still afk. Superkiller screamed “ABOOSE. YOU FREAKING ABOOSER” and crap like that. I said, “Shut up, THIS would be abuse” and banned him, then Pzk started doing it, a max of 10 seconds had passed while I argued with Pzk and I unbanned him.

Argumentative Speculation below [to be put in comment]


Also, the Bill of Rights says you can’t put me on trial for the same crime twice. So this must be a isolated incident, or else you’re breaking the law and we need to put YOU on trial. Oh and, last time I checked, YOU were the one that put me on trial, not Nighthawk or Super. Nighthawk wasn’t even there.

[Edit] Ya know what, just demote me if you want, Nick. I don’t really care, it’s obvious I’m not cut out for how the new GSA thinks, I’m too old school and don’t like change. I did my time as the head member, got friends, got enemies, got memories. But now apparently it’s over. I won’t retire, because I refuse to say that I gave up. But apparently Pzk and Banana won’t rest until I’m gone. I have very few

[Nickman101:] The Concept of Double Jeopardy as outlined in the Constitution is that once the court has ruled on a specific incident then you cannot be ruled upon again on the same incident. For example, If I steal Batman from Aj on 9/5/14, and I was ruled innocent, then I cannot be charged again for stealing Batman from Aj on 9/5/14, again. Double Jeopardy doesn’t apply here haha

 [Jeep] In my view, that’s exactly what’s going on here though. He wants to use things that were already punished in prior trials to make this trial go worse for me. Sounds like the same thing to me.

[Nickman101:] I am not including any evidence from any past trial nor am I charging you based on your past actions. However, if somebody commits the same crime over and over again, their sentence isn’t the same every single time, their punishments become harsher until the court realizes that such an individual cannot be released to the public and expected to not commit the same crime again, so they usually stick them in jail for a long time. That is one of the reasons why the punishment may be harsher this time if you are found guilty, and it is completely reasonable.

 [Jeep] Okay, Pzk seems to be of the opinion that I’m already guilty and this is just some kind of sentencing post, lol. I’ve already given you what’s happened, so it’s your choice, I’m not sure I care either way.

Pzk: It’s obvious that this is an open and shut case. The evidence is right there, and it was abuse, no matter what context you put it in. GSA members are never banned. If by some wild chance you are acquitted, people would still be on your ass, watching you all the time, waiting for that moment to convict you. In a way, no matter the outcome of this trial, the objectives will be met – the abuse will end one way or another.

[Reaper]: A GSA member can be banned only for a short period if he/she breaks a law multiple times. (NOTE: This means more than maybe 4-5 times. [in one day maybe?]).

^ Does anyone have a screenshot of how many times he called me an “abuser”, which could be taken insultingly, thus violating law 1?

[Reaper]: You must have forgetten the “4-5 times in one day” thing. You ban without warning sometimes. Do NOT try and put blame onto me.

^  I never put the blame on you. ._. I meant how many times Superkiller called me an abuser.

[I strongly recommend that this be transferred to comments]

[Eagle613]: Sorry for the disruption. But I need to put out a warning. If I see any more insulting comments towards Jeep I will personally demote you for breaking law 1 and for being an idiot. Thank you.

[Nickman101:] Jeeps punishment will be that he will be membered in the chat for two weeks, his chat powers revoked temporarily. Demoting JEEP would be too far, and banning him for a week would be too harsh as well. I don’t think the current laws on the chat are adequate to meet his punishment, and that this unique punishment will do. Since it’s illegal to create a new law that interferes with an ongoing trial, vote, etc, since this trial is over, I will be editing the chat laws to add for harsher punishments such as demotion. 


 [Jeep]: Let the Jeep abuse commence. 😛




46 thoughts on “Jeep’s Chat Trial [Resolved]

  1. You should make them explain the incident, otherwise you’ll get people like
    “I posted porn, but he banned me so he aboosed lel” which is what usually happens.

  2. Pzk: The first paragraph accurately describes the situation that happened, but doesn’t deny the abuse that occured. Guesting someone is not a proper way to get their attention, and banning someone is not a proper way to show an example. Keep in mind this isn’t an isolated incident, however, and has happened in the past. The accumulation of small offenses with small punishments (not solving the offenses) inevitably will lead to greater punishments. The Bill of Rights does, in fact, state that a person may not be tried twice for the same crime. If there were two trials for this chat abuse – one after the other was resolved – that would be in violation of the Bill of Rights. However, if there were a trial for Nighthawk and Superkiller’s seperate cases, that would not be in violation of the Bill of Rights. Even though this is the same TYPE of crime (chat power abuse) it is not the same crime committed (abuse of Nighthawk/Superkiller). Nighthawk and Superkiller were the ones abused, and Superkiller urged me to make a post, but I was not abused myself.

    The final paragraph is blatant emotional manipulation. The new GSA does not think or act any different than the “old” GSA. The old GSA had many of the same laws and regulations, except these were bypassed because of Jason’s favoritism and whims. We are at a point where we should not have to make exceptions for people. The defendant’s sentence stating that he does not like change is interesting, as the change we are witnessing is the change to a more orderly GSA. If one draws conclusions from his statement, he is saying he does not like the fact he cannot abuse his power and get away with it. Your journey in GSA is most certainly not over, it just requires a little bit of adaptation to the long-needed respect of the law. Favoritism, bias, and exception-making are all shameful in a society that is supposed to be just.

    1. *laughs hysterically* Nighthawk didn’t care, and Aj did the same thing and Nighthawk had to stay guested for a while, why is he not being punished? xD

      You want people from months ago to give you examples, THAT is illegal because I was already “punished for abuse” for those cases, thus they cannot be brought up again as reason for demotion or punishment. Case closed gentlemen.

      It acts very differently, no-one complained about “aboose” back then. And if they did it was because it was actual abuse, and if it wasn’t, no-one cared. That’s very different for today. Everyone is much softer today, because we got softer in our punishments and I’m not allowed to be tough on the lower ranks.

      Not liking change is a generalization, deal with it.

      Long needed. Haha, look at yourself trying to mess with my rights you hypocrite.

      This will be my last reply to you. You’ve had your say, I’ve had mine. Now leave it alone.

  3. I had saw it. Even I remembered one thing. Your Supreme rank is not for you Jeep. You should be in the rank LtGen or some shit. I may not be able to have supporting details but I can show some stufx of it. This is the main trial tbh while that other post is just an announcement for GSA members to be aware of. I’m fucking aware of that before it. (chew) Are you a supreme or what?

    1. Are you smoking something or what?

      1. I’ve done more for GSA than you will do in your entire life, I led GSA for 5 months because the people that were at the top with me were too afk to do anything of importance. Where were you during that time? Just because I don’t abide by a single punishment rule does not make me worthy of demotion. As Nick has said, the punishment for banning is being banned. (How does that make sense?)

      2. LtGen. Haha.

      3. No, it wasn’t an “announcement” it was Pzk trying to illegally demote me, hosting an illegal trial. Get your facts straight.

      4. If you want to act condescending, at least use proper grammar so I’m not laughing at you while you’re doing it.

      1. That post was never intended to be a sentencing post. I wanted to know the opinion of the people for the severity of punishment. That doesn’t mean it would be put into effect, as obviously some FG are ignoring what is clearly thee affected public’s opinion on the matter.

      1. Highly doubt what, me being banned? It has happened before and I think my jeep to. There is no question it has happened and nothing is ever done about it. It’s time for that to change. I have also been guest in the gsa chat for the past 3 days.

    1. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Apparently an mostly example is worthy of demotion from FG.


      And I haven’t been shown guilty as of yet. Banning is legal if they break laws continually. I forgot that part.

  4. No, you never ban a gsa member ever. or that used to be the rule. If its not, it should be re-installed. Jeep, this trial is about what you did that day AND what you have done in the past. I have seen you ban people before when they were simply being annoying, which is not allowed. I’m also pretty sure you have banned me too, but that is not certain.

Write a Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s