JMO-0080 · DivineJovile v The State

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This case is an appeal against loyalty jacks entry P-4283 given to DivineJovile. The reason recorded was “Event Watch, strike two in thirty days,” for breaking Ping and Event rules in Shock Division #events. The question is simple. Did the State prove there was a second, separate faulty shout within thirty days, so P-4283 can stand. We decide only from this file.

There is no penal code count charged here. We only decide if the appealed punishment stays or is set aside. The appeal was filed within one day of the jacks being recorded, so it is in time. This follows from the filing time and the time shown in the decision under appeal. We decide the appeal as a whole.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Appeals Court on 2026-10-20. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-20 the Supreme Court took the case, and it has decided it on the case file together with the State's case assembled from the Imperium's records.

The Court put no questions to the parties. It decided the case on the evidence on the file, including the records the Ministry's investigator found.

The Court asked no questions. This sitting was ordered to decide the case on the record as it stands. The file already contains the punishment entry, the linked proof message, and the investigator’s account of what the search did and did not find. We therefore decide without further steps.

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The record shows Event Watch sentenced DivineJovile to ten loyalty jacks as entry P-4283. The entry says it is “strike two in thirty days” and it points to one linked #events message as proof. This is shown by the sentencing embed quoted in the State’s case. The decision under appeal repeats the same reason and the same proof link.

The record also shows the one linked #events shout content. It is a shout by Vallens Valcroix that includes role pings and a heading line. This is the only #events message in the record tied to P-4283. The investigator states the search found no second, different #events shout by DivineJovile within thirty days. Nothing else in the file shows a second strike.

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

DivineJovile says he first got a warning for one faulty shout. He then got punished four hours later, but the “proof” was the same shout he was warned for. He says he was punished twice for the same offense. This is stated in the Filing and matches his later quoted message in the State’s case.

The State’s own investigator says the records prove P-4283 was sentenced and that the proof link points to one shout. The investigator also says the search did not find evidence of a second, different shout within thirty days. On that record, the State says P-4283 cannot fairly be supported as “strike two.” This is set out in the State’s case summary.

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal rule says a field punishment can be appealed within twenty four hours. That time limit is met here. Evidence must also be real proof, like screenshots, video, or witness accounts. Here, the State relies on Discord records that show what was posted and what was punished. We accept them for what they show.

P-4283 is recorded as “strike two in thirty days.” That basis needs proof of two separate faulty shouts within the window. The record shows only one shout linked as proof, and nothing else showing another strike. We cannot uphold a “second strike” punishment when the second strike is missing from the record. The appeal is allowed and P-4283 is set aside.

THE SENTENCE

This is an appeal, so we do not issue a new punishment. The result is that the punishment under appeal does not stand. The ten loyalty jacks recorded as entry P-4283 are set aside. This matches what the evidence supports and what the State itself could not prove beyond doubt.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is allowed. Entry P-4283 cannot stand because the file shows only one faulty shout, not two. The ten loyalty jacks in P-4283 are set aside. No further remedy is needed in this case file.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The written reason for P-4283 is “strike two in thirty days.” That phrase has a clear meaning. It requires two separate faults inside the stated window. The record shows one shout used as proof, and no other shout is identified. A single shout cannot be both strike one and strike two without a rule saying so.

A possible answer is that the missing first strike existed in a private message. But private messages are not in this file, and we can only judge on what is here. Without evidence of a second strike, the recorded legal basis for the punishment fails. I vote to allow the appeal and set aside P-4283.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA: Order needs firm discipline, and Event Watch rules can be strict. Still, discipline must be backed by clear proof. When the reason is “strike two,” the proof must show two separate strikes. If not, punishments look random, and that harms respect for enforcement.

Here, the State’s own search found only one shout linked to P-4283. That is not enough to keep ten jacks for a second strike. The right response is to set P-4283 aside, and to expect better record keeping before using higher steps. I vote to allow the appeal.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: Fairness requires that a person can see and answer the proof used against him. This file shows one proof link for P-4283, and it leads to one shout. Nothing shows a second shout, and nothing shows the content of the earlier warning DivineJovile describes. That gap creates real doubt about whether “strike two” happened at all.

It is tempting to assume the system would not punish without a first strike. But assumptions are not evidence. When the record is missing the key fact that makes the step harsher, the benefit of doubt must go to the punished member. I vote to allow the appeal and set aside P-4283.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: This case sets a simple rule for later cases. If an automated or staff system uses “strike two,” the file must show two separate strikes. A single proof link to a single message cannot support an increased step. Keeping that standard makes punishments consistent and easy to review.

The strongest argument for upholding is that the first strike might exist outside the search, like a direct message. But if it cannot be shown in the appeal file, it cannot support the punishment on review. Consistency demands we set it aside. I vote to allow the appeal.

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS: Judgment is given as set out in the conclusion below. The Court is unanimous. Decided by the Supreme Court of the Imperium on the evidence on the file.

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. Sentence: The ten loyalty jacks recorded as entry P-4283 are set aside.

3. Unanimous.