Difference between revisions of "Mexico City Wild Wings v. The Blaseball Gods"

From Blaseball Wiki

(draf #2)
Tag: 2017 source edit
m
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Mexico City Wild Wings v. The Blaseball Gods''' was a legal case related to the [[Mexico City Wild Wings]]' placement in the [[Mild League]] following the [[Season 5#Election Results|Season 5]] [[decree]] ''High Filter'' and the team's resulting name changes throughout [[Season 6]].
+
'''Mexico City Wild Wings v. The Blaseball Gods''' was a legal case related to the [[Mexico City Wild Wings]]' placement in the [[Mild League]] following the [[Season 5#Election Results|Season 5]] [[decree]] ''High Filter'' and the team's resulting name changes throughout [[Season 6]]. __FORCETOC__
  
 
==History==
 
==History==

Revision as of 03:05, 12 September 2020

Mexico City Wild Wings v. The Blaseball Gods was a legal case related to the Mexico City Wild Wings' placement in the Mild League following the Season 5 decree High Filter and the team's resulting name changes throughout Season 6.

History

The Mexico City Wild Wings were inaugural members of Internet League Blaseball when the league returned at the beginning of Season 1. During their five seasons prior to the lawsuit, the team gained a reputation as static and unchanging. They had not received a blessing until José Haley earned the Mushroom item during the Season 4 election, and they had through the end of Season 5 never been subject to weather or a roster change in any form.

During the Season 5 election, the passage of the High Filter decree reorganized the league by disbanding the Good and Evil leagues and forming the Wild and Mild Leagues via the Season 5 standings. Since the Wild Wings finished 11th out of 20 teams in Season 5, they were placed in a new division representing teams 11-15. The new division, later named Mild Low, was divided into the second of the two new leagues, later named the Mild League.

Given the name and branding efforts of the Wild Wings over the first five seasons of the league, the team and its fans viewed this league placement as an affront to an organization that was already thought to be overlooked by the Blaseball Gods. During Season 6, the Wild Wings Legal Team filed a defamation of character suit in the Superior Internet Court of the Immaterial Plane.

Proceedings

Partway through Season 6, the Wild Wings Legal Team filed suit in the Superior Internet Court of the Immaterial Plane. Guy Flieri, petitioning on behalf of the Wild Wings, claimed defamation by the Blaseball Gods. The Wild Wings argued for injurious defamation on four counts:

  • Unjust Humiliation: that the Blaseball Gods knowingly reoriented the Divisions and Leagues unjustly and without warning in a manner that would cause the Wild Wings great anguish coupled with trivialization of the team's concerns through use of the term "flavored" in official game results;
  • Denial of the Essence of Being: that the Blaseball Gods knowingly denied the Wild Wings their Wildness through such Division and League Reorientation;
  • Burden of Health: that the individual Wild Wings players suffered harm through these actions that reflected both in league play and in overall mental and physical health outcomes;
  • Loss of Brand Value: that the Blaseball Gods knowingly realigned the divisions so as to bring harm to the Wild Wings organization through denial of branding and loss of sponsors.

The Commissioner initially responded to this suit, "no comment fifth amendment"[1] and "counter sue."[2]

The counter suit, submitted by The Commissioner responding on behalf of the Blaseball Gods, argued that the Wild Wings' complaint did not meet any known legal standard in the Immaterial Plane. Furthermore, the Gods argued on factual grounds, citing the team's aversion to weather events and roster changes, the unknowable nature of how the Leagues were formed, unclear provenance of the franchise name, and health burden due to causes not named in the lawsuit.

The Wild Wings filed a memorandum in response. They argued that the outstanding performance of Burke Gonzales and Silvia Rugrat in the face of adversity as well as the team's tendency to wind up in one-run contests proved that the team demonstrated sufficient wildness so as to allow the complaint to continue. They further contended that the remainder of the Gods' argument failed to be relevant.

The suit was eventually dismissed by The Commissioner[3] and court was adjourned without rendering a decision.