Page 1 of 1

Sir Riddick [ka]

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:45 pm
by JaLoMen
Game 14795324

2014-08-29 20:32:58 - Sir Riddick: stfu you homo
2014-08-29 20:33:04 - innocentkaoss: watch the language
2014-08-29 20:33:30 - charliebnt: if you fck stains get out of my dam way
2014-08-29 20:33:46 - Meatcat: no hair pulling girls
2014-08-29 20:34:12 - JaLoMen: no i'm sick of his shit
2014-08-29 20:34:24 - Sir Riddick: your gay and stupid stfu
2014-08-29 20:34:33 - Sir Riddick: im sick of your gayness bs
2014-08-29 20:34:35 - innocentkaoss: report him
2014-08-29 20:34:44 - charliebnt: why do you love men , jack?
2014-08-29 20:34:51 - JaLoMen: you're*
2014-08-29 20:34:54 - Sir Riddick: go find a pot of gold at the end of your rainbow bitch f*ck
2014-08-29 20:34:59 - innocentkaoss: grow up ridd
2014-08-29 20:35:28 - JaLoMen: how do i report someone?
2014-08-29 20:35:44 - Sir Riddick: you message the admin
2014-08-29 20:35:55 - Sir Riddick: tell him your a whiny bitch
2014-08-29 20:36:00 - Sir Riddick: and report yourself



The accused are suspected of:

Verbal abuse



Game number(s):

14795324
and a number of others. will look them up if need be.


Comments: Continuously uses homophobic comments against me. I will use this as evidence of a hate crime if it gets to that level.

Re: Sir Riddick

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:48 pm
by Major.Bossman
If you can present more evidense of continual verbal abuse from other games that might help your case. If you have not done so already you might want to foe the accused so you do not have to deal with the language while this gets judged by the mods.

Re: Sir Riddick

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:30 pm
by Serbia
The homophobia is enough for a warning. However,

JaLoMen wrote:I will use this as evidence of a hate crime if it gets to that level.


this cracks me up. Dude, chill. It's the interwebz. Very rarely does nonsensical banter lead to actual crimes.

Bollocks.

Re: Sir Riddick

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:58 pm
by Edric Wolfswift
Capture.JPG

I looked through all of the 49 games you have played with him, and I see no proof of how he "Continuously uses homophobic comments". However, I did see what appears to be a jovial banter you two have developed, and a rather disturbing moment where you admitted to trying to have sex with your own dog in Game 14611876

Re: Sir Riddick

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:46 pm
by MagnusGreeol
^ I agree.

Re: Sir Riddick

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:32 pm
by Major.Bossman
:o wtf. This is messed up.

Re: Sir Riddick

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:47 am
by king achilles
Since you and Sir Riddick have played 49 games together and this looks to be the first time the unpleasantry in the game chat became intolerable for you, I suggest that you put him on your foe list. Using the foe list is your right so don't be afraid to use it once you feel uncomfortable playing with someone. Although I can agree that this can be seen as homophobic or offending, I think I would need more than just this game alone to warrant some official action as of now. I have contacted him to be more careful of his trash talking. This report shall be noted in his records in case he repeats this kind of trash talk once again.

Re: Sir Riddick [ka]

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:57 am
by jackal31
Arent there two cases here?

The questiong of bullying/harassment and the question of inappropriate language/bigotry. I dont think harassment /bullying can be proven since this is the first documented instance. By definition, it is a cycle that occurs over a period of time. But, the second can be proven. This should at least be a warning and not noted based on the guidelines of CC.

I do agree with noting it for the first part, but not the second.

Re: Sir Riddick [ka]

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:59 am
by iAmCaffeine
jackal31 wrote:Arent there two cases here?

The questiong of bullying/harassment and the question of inappropriate language/bigotry. I dont think harassment /bullying can be proven since this is the first documented instance. By definition, it is a cycle that occurs over a period of time. But, the second can be proven. This should at least be a warning and not noted based on the guidelines of CC.

I do agree with noting it for the first part, but not the second.


+1