JMO-0078 · efsdggftfcgfv v The State

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This appeal concerns a field punishment of ten loyalty jacks, entered as P-4229, imposed under an internal Discord “Event Watch” enforcement of a ping and event-shout formatting regulation in Police Cohort #events. No penal-code count is charged in this case, so the Court does not determine criminal liability, but whether the appealed punishment is supported on the record and within the procedural and evidentiary requirements applicable to judicial review. The appellant’s complaint is that he was “flagged for no reason” and had formatted the shout correctly (Filing).

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Appeals Court on 2026-10-18. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-19 the Supreme Court took the case by order of the owner, and it has decided it on the case file.

The Court put no questions to the parties. By order of the owner it decided the case on the evidence on the file.

The Court notes that it has not put questions to the parties. This sitting is governed by an instruction that the Court must decide the case on the record as it stands and may not ask questions. The absence of questions therefore carries no adverse inference against either party, but means that gaps in the record remain unfilled and must be assessed under the applicable burden and standard of proof (THIS SITTING; Penal Code § 8.1.2).

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The decision under appeal is a punishment of ten loyalty jacks, entry P-4229, recorded on 2026-10-18 15:52 UTC, with the recorded reason: “Event Watch, strike 2 in 30 days: broke the Ping and Event Regulations in Police Cohort #events (TITLE)” with a Discord message link (Decision under appeal; REMEDY FACTS).

The file contains a Ministry record extract stating that on 2026-10-16 the owner posted a regulation requiring, among other things, that an event shout put “the title in brackets at the very top, like # [PATROL], and the ping at the very bottom” (Exhibit 1). The same extract states that a shout in #events was posted and later edited, and that the text as it stands now begins with “[PATROL]” followed by descriptive text, LINK and VC lines, and ends with “@here” (Exhibit 1).

The extract further states that Event Watch recorded only one fault, “TITLE”, at 15:52:47 UTC, after a three-minute grace period, applying an internal rule stated as: “The first line must be the event title in brackets, written as a heading, like `# [PATROL]`.” It also states that the text before the edit was not kept (Exhibit 1).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The appellant submits only that he believed he was flagged for no reason and that he used the correct format (Filing). The State, though named in this appeal, has filed no written response and placed no additional exhibits before the Court (Case log; portal chat).

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is timely. The punishment was recorded at 15:52 UTC and the appeal was filed at 15:59 UTC the same day, which is within the twenty four hour window for field punishments (Decision under appeal; Log 1; Penal Code § 8.1.4). The question is whether the record supports maintaining the punishment.

Penal Code § 8.1.2 defines valid evidence as screenshots, video footage, or witness testimony of the crime. The only exhibit is a text extract described as a “record of the Ministry” and it expressly notes that the text before the shout was edited was not kept (Exhibit 1). The Court has no screenshot of the shout as it appeared at the time the bot recorded the fault, no video, and no witness testimony identifying the precise formatting then visible. On that basis alone, the Court cannot treat the breach as proven to the standard required for judicial enforcement in an appeal setting, and the punishment cannot be upheld on this record (Exhibit 1; Penal Code § 8.1.2).

Even if the Court were to proceed on the extract’s description of the shout “as it stands now”, the regulation text quoted in the record requires the title in brackets at the very top, “like # [PATROL]” (Exhibit 1). The shout shown begins with “[PATROL]” on the first line (Exhibit 1). The use of “like” in the regulation makes it uncertain whether the leading heading marker is mandatory or illustrative of placing a bracketed title first. Where a disciplinary rule is ambiguous on a technical formatting point, and the enforcement escalates to jacks, the ambiguity must be resolved against upholding punishment unless the record clearly establishes a breach (Exhibit 1).

Finally, the extract attributes the shout to “Albert Valcroix (Discord albertxd1234_37397)” (Exhibit 1), while the punishment and appeal concern the appellant efsdggftfcgfv (Decision under appeal; Log 1). The record contains no proof linking those identities. While the Court accepts that the discipline entry P-4229 is recorded against the appellant (REMEDY FACTS), the absence of linkage evidence further reinforces that the appealed punishment cannot be upheld as proven on this file (Exhibit 1; REMEDY FACTS). The appeal is therefore allowed.

THE SENTENCE

No penal-code count is charged and this is an appeal, so the Court imposes no sentence and does not substitute a different punishment. The consequence of allowing the appeal is that the appealed field punishment must be voided and any record of it lifted or corrected in the Imperium’s systems (Penal Code § 8.1.5; REMEDY FACTS).

CONCLUSION

The appeal is allowed. The punishment recorded as P-4229 cannot be upheld because the record lacks valid evidence within Penal Code § 8.1.2 of the shout as it appeared when the bot recorded the fault, and because the regulation text quoted does not clearly establish that the appellant’s shown formatting constituted a punishable breach. The discipline-book entry must be lifted and the status quo restored as far as the Imperium’s systems permit (Exhibit 1; Decision under appeal; REMEDY FACTS).

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The decisive point for me is legality of proof, not the desirability of the regulation. Penal Code § 8.1.2 is the controlling rule on what counts as valid evidence. The file contains neither a screenshot nor video, and it contains no human witness testimony describing what was observed in the channel at the relevant time. A Ministry text extract that summarizes what a bot recorded is not within the listed categories, and we are not at liberty to expand the list by analogy.

Even if I assume the extract is reliable, it states that the pre-edit text was not kept. That means the Court is asked to affirm punishment while being unable to see the content that allegedly triggered the bot after the grace period. The appellant’s bare assertion cannot fill the gap, but neither can the State’s silence. The correct legal response to a missing element of proof is to allow the appeal and void the punishment. I therefore vote to allow the appeal and lift P-4229.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA, dissenting: The regulation shown in the file exists to stop sloppy shouts and ping misuse, and it was posted with an express warning that enforcement would be heavy (Exhibit 1). The bot rule for TITLE is also stated in the record. The shout as shown does not use a heading format, and the bot recorded the TITLE fault after the grace period (Exhibit 1). In my view, that is enough to uphold the sanction as a matter of order and discipline, particularly where this is recorded as strike two within thirty days (Exhibit 1; Decision under appeal).

I accept the concern that § 8.1.2 lists screenshots, video, and witness testimony, and that we do not have a screenshot. But this is not a criminal conviction under a charged penal article; it is review of a minor internal discipline decision. The Court should not disable routine enforcement by insisting on a screenshot in every bot action when the Ministry record itself documents the rule, the shout text, and the bot’s finding (Exhibit 1). I would dismiss the appeal and leave P-4229 standing.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: The record is too incomplete to support maintaining a punishment. The key defect is context and authenticity at the relevant time. The shout was edited, and the file expressly states that the text before the edit was not kept (Exhibit 1). We therefore cannot know whether the formatting at the end of the grace period matched what is reproduced “as it stands now”, and the Court cannot ask for the original message due to the sitting order.

There is also a fairness issue in attribution. The exhibit names a Discord user as the poster, but the appellant is identified differently, and nothing in the file links them (Exhibit 1; Decision under appeal). It may be true and it often is, but it is not proven here. Where a discipline record affects standing, doubt must be resolved by setting aside the sanction. I vote to allow the appeal and lift P-4229 with consequential correction.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: No precedent is cited, so what matters is the rule we set for future cases under the written code. Penal Code § 8.1.2 is drafted as a closed list of acceptable evidence types. If the Imperium wishes automated records to be sufficient, it must be stated. Until then, consistency requires that we apply the same evidentiary threshold in appeals reviewing punishments, or the standard becomes discretionary and unpredictable.

At the same time, the Court should not be read as forbidding bot enforcement. The narrow rule I take from this case is that where the Ministry cannot produce a screenshot, video, or witness testimony of the allegedly noncompliant content as it existed at the time of the finding, the Supreme Court will not uphold jacks on appeal. On this record, and with the additional ambiguity in the “like # [PATROL]” wording (Exhibit 1), I vote to allow the appeal and lift P-4229.

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS: Judgment is given as set out in the conclusion below. Judgment is given by four votes to one. Decided by the Supreme Court of the Imperium by order of the owner.

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The Court orders: The owner and the Ministry of Justice shall void P-4229 in all relevant systems, including any loyalty-jacks balance change and any strike-ladder state derived from it, so the appellant stands as if the punishment had not been made (concerning efsdggftfcgfv).

3. Given by four votes to one.