My NationStates name is Republic of Satherland.
I certify under penalty of perjury that everything said in this post is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
I never witnessed the plaintiff's full name being released before the second Durnil video was published. Therefore, I cannot testify on those events. I can however provide my testimony as one of the people present on Friday, 30th April, on the day were the second offence took place.
At 16:04 hrs UTC on Friday, the accused posted a video on the #chatter channed on Eurocord. The video was titled "I broke the game by getting 30,000+ players to join at the same time", by Drew Durnil. The start of the video included a brief look at the comments section of his first video regarding the game NationStates, which featured a comment by the plaintiff using his full name. The comment, which has since been deleted by the plaintiff, received 299 likes and 5 replies. Whether the accused has anything to do with this is unknown.
Below his post, the accused mentioned to the plaintiff that he was in the video. In response, The Mongol Plain quipped that "Diz is famous", presumably in a humorous manner. The dust appeared to have settled when Alienage (under the account name "Vicente"), claimed outright that the plaintiff was not in the video released by Mr Durnil, before both the plaintiff and the accused clarified that the plaintiff was indeed in the video. At this point, I was under the impression that the plaintiff's nation (Dizgovzy) was featured in the video, and not his full name.
In response, Alienage said that he'll "make investigations" on the matter. The accused then pointed to the location of the plaintiff's name to Alienage, asking him to "make your guess out of the comments shown". This caused an outburst by the plaintiff, telling the accused to "[redacted] YOU". The plaintiff went on to say that he never gave the accused permission to share his real name to anyone. This erupted in a relatively one-sided argument with the plaintiff lashing out at the accused for invading his privacy and destroying his anonymity, which was shrugged off by the accused.
This was when I got involved. Perceiving this argument to be humorous in nature, I quipped to the plaintiff that he should "enjoy his 15 minutes of fame. XD". The plaintiff responded simply by saying "Great, you have it too," and "Well shit." Still under the impression that the plaintiff was in a humorous mood, I responded, saying:
"C'mon, don't be like that. What's the harm in us accidentally finding out about your real name?
And it's not like THAT many people know your name from that dispatch...."
This referenced a dispatch released by the plaintiff several months ago, which included the plaintiff's first name.
The plaintiff responded, telling me to "go to hell". This finally brought me back down to reality, and I realised the severity of the situation. By this point, the accused no longer engaged in this conversation. Under my interpretation, our encounter ended in a truce of some sort, with myself no longer joking about the plaintiff's misfortune.
In the aftermath, I contacted both the plaintiff and the defendant. While the plaintiff chose not to respond to my messages (probably rightly so), the accused confided in me.
When I asked how we was after everything that went down, he told me that he was "more concerned with how Diz is after how i [Rivierenland] treated him".
When pressed with the possibility of a 4 month ban in accordance with the Criminal Law Act 2018, the accused said that the sentence "serves me [Rivierenland] right", further stating that the accused "had it coming".
When I expressed remorse for his situation, he said: "Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for Diz, since he's the victim in the crime i committed", further stating that "he deserves the (positive) attention more than i do". The accused stated further that "I'm a crook and Diz is my victim".
With all the evidence laid out for this court, I, while simply a witness and not the legal representative of the accused, would like to plead for leniency from this court. While do not condone the accused's actions, I believe that he truly feels remorse for his wrongdoings and will no longer commit offences on this charge. As the primary purpose of a sentencing is to rehabilitate criminals and deter them from committing the same offences again, I believe that the accused has seen the error of his ways and should be granted leniency, as he has pleaded guilty and expressed remorse for his actions against the plaintiff.
As such, I would implore this court to give the accused a sentence not exceeding two months. I believe that our great region is a compassionate one, that chooses not to judge an individual for their worst actions. And I believe that the accused is well on the path of rehabilitation and is no longer a threat to society. Thank you.
