JMO-0083 · laki648974 v The State

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This appeal concerns a permanent game ban recorded as “Permaban from octavian main game.” The appellant says he was banned for no reason while playing. There are no penal code counts in this case, so we only decide if the appealed punishment should stand. We also consider whether the record shows a clear mistake that the Court must fix now. We decide on the written record. (Filing, Exhibit 1, Log 3)

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Appeals Court on 2026-10-21. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-21 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 in this sitting. The case was taken under the seven day rule and decided on the file as it stands. (Log 3)

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The Ministry’s ban record shows a permanent game ban was given to laki648974 on 2026-10-08, with the reason text “No reason provided.” The same record says the ban covers Invictus, Occupied Toulouse, and Grahovo. The record also shows the ban was lifted in the ban book on 2026-10-14. (Exhibit 1)

The record explains why the player could still be blocked from the game after the lift. Two unban orders were queued for a live server, but no server picked them up. The record states this is a technical fault, not a fresh decision to keep the ban. (Exhibit 1)

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The appellant says he was permabanned from the Octavium universe game for no reason while driving in Toulouse. He asks for the ban lifted. (Filing)

The State’s record says the ban exists in the ban systems, but it was already lifted in the ban book. The State says the continued lockout is caused by a technical failure, and not supported by any recorded charge or reason. The State also notes this filing is a duplicate of another appeal. (Exhibit 1)

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

An appeal can be filed against a field punishment like a game ban. When the Imperium’s own record shows a punishment has been lifted, it should not keep blocking the player in practice. (Exhibit 1, Penal Code § 8.1.4)

Here the only full ban record we have says the ban was lifted in the ban book, and that the ongoing block is a technical fault. There is also no recorded reason or charge supporting a permanent ban. On this record, the appealed punishment cannot stand. The appeal is allowed, and the game ban must be removed. (Exhibit 1, Penal Code § 8.1.5)

THE SENTENCE

Because this is an appeal, we do not set any new punishment. We only decide what happens to the punishment under appeal. The correct result is that the permanent game ban is lifted and the player must be able to join again. (Exhibit 1)

CONCLUSION

The appeal is allowed. The permanent game ban under appeal is lifted. The Imperium must also ensure the technical fault does not keep the lifted ban active in live servers. (Exhibit 1)

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The appealed action is a “Permaban from octavian main game.” The key point is the Imperium’s own ban record. It says the ban was lifted in the ban book, and that the reason field was empty when first issued. (Exhibit 1)

Under the appeal rule, the Court can review a punishment and remove it when it has no valid support in the record. Keeping a ban active after it is lifted is not a new lawful sentence. It is just an execution error. The proper fix is to remove the active game ban now. I vote to allow the appeal. (Exhibit 1, Penal Code § 8.1.4, § 8.1.5)

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA: A permanent game ban is one of the strongest tools the Imperium has. It must be clear why it was given, and it must be carried out correctly when lifted. Here, the record shows no reason was recorded, and later the ban was lifted anyway. (Exhibit 1)

Order is harmed when a lifted punishment still hits the player because of a system fault. Players will not trust the Imperium’s discipline if lifts do not work. Allowing this appeal and forcing the unban supports discipline, not weakness. I vote to allow the appeal and remove the ban in game at once. (Exhibit 1)

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: I tested whether the evidence really proves the player is still blocked. The remedy facts say the game ban state is unknown, which creates some doubt. Still, Exhibit 1 is taken from the Imperium’s own ban systems and explains the mismatch between the ban book and live servers. That is strong and direct evidence. (Exhibit 1)

Fairness also matters. A permanent ban with “No reason provided” is hard to defend in any review, and the ban is recorded as lifted. If there is any uncertainty about the current live state, an unban order is the least harmful correction. I vote to allow the appeal and unban. (Exhibit 1)

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: This case should set a simple rule for later appeals. When the Imperium’s ban book says a ban is lifted, the player should not be blocked by that ban in the game. If the system fails, the Court should correct the live effect, not just the paperwork. (Exhibit 1)

Nothing in this record supports keeping the ban as a current punishment. The reason field was empty, and the lift is recorded. Consistency requires we treat the lift as final and effective. I vote to allow the appeal and order the game unban. (Exhibit 1)

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 permanent game ban under appeal is lifted.

3. The Ministry of Justice and the game owners must ensure lifted bans sync to live servers, so this lifted ban does not return. (Exhibit 1)

4. The Court orders: the game ban on laki648974 is lifted.

5. Unanimous.