CoJ Case 059

From Wikipedia of the Dark Jedi Brotherhood, an online Star Wars Club
This article is part of the series:
Chamber of Justice

DB vs Kadrol Hauen was the fifty-ninth case tried by the Chamber of Justice. The sitting Justicar was Dacien Victae, the Left Hand of Justice was Alaris Jinn, and the Right Hand of Justice was Arden Karn.

Basic Case Information



  • Crude Behaviour - 3 Counts - Plea of Guilty


  • GUILTY as to all charges


  • Loss of Progress towards Journeyman 4
  • 4 Months Strict Probation of 4 months (displacing the previously remaining General Probation) and 8 Months General Probation served consecutively
  • 1 Week Total Ban from all Official Brotherhood Telegram Chats (excluding DB Gaming) followed by 2 Weeks Mute from all Official Brotherhood Telegram Chats
  • Letter of Reprimand

Related News Post

Members of the Dark Jedi Brotherhood,

The Chamber of Justice has convened and issued a verdict in the pending case of DB v. Kadrol Hauen. Based on a formal complaint and investigation, Kadrol was charged with three counts of Crude Behavior. After consulting with the Left Hand of Justice, Kadrol elected to plead guilty to the charges. A detailed Verdict and Justicar Opinion for the case can be found in the PDF file linked below. Please note that the written opinion is generally found on the page after announcement of the verdict.

The verdict was as follows:

Case #059 - DB v. Kadrol Hauen - Opinion PDF

  • Three Counts of Crude Behavior
  • Punishment: Letter of Reprimand; Loss of Progress towards Journeyman 4; Strict Probation for 4 months (displacing the remaining General Probation from 056 DB) followed by 8 months General Probation; Total Ban from Official Telegram Chats (except for DB Gaming) for one week followed by two weeks of muting in Official Telegram Chats.

Comments on CoJ posts are left open for positive comments and words of encouragement to a member that has just gone through this hard process. Please be kind.

Signed and sealed in Justice,

Dacien Victae Justicar of the Dark Jedi Brotherhood

Justicar's Opinion

Kadrol Hauen was charged with Crude Behavior based on a deeply concerning pattern of conduct illustrated by the three incidents occuring over a roughly-one month period. Specifically:

  • On May 17, 2018, Kadrol Hauen directed the term “kys”, known shorthand for “Kill yourself,” at another member of the Brotherhood. In response to that incident, Kadrol was warned directly by the Grand Master not to utilize such language or face being banned from DJB channels.
  • On June 11, 2018, in the general DJB Telegram channel, Kadrol directed explicit, unwanted sexual comments at another member including “If I were a girl, I’d f*** that” and “<member> is f***ing hot tho” after said member posted a selfie. At that time, Kadrol was warned by the Proconsul of Clan Scholae Palatine to cease engaging in such behaviour or face further action.
  • On June 21, 2018, in Clan Scholae Palatine’s Telegram channel Kadrol engaged in a dialogue regarding African American slavery that strongly suggested racial supremacy and defended slavery. These comments included “It’s why African Americans are so triggered about it today...” and “(a)lways has to be a race thing, see.” These comments came after being warned about past crude behavior.

Crude Behavior has rarely been charged in the history of the Brotherhood. Section 2.01(d) of the Covenant grants all members the right of free speech, subject to the Covenant’s own limits on member conduct. As such, charging and convicting a member of Crude Behavior requires more than merely disagreeable or unpopular speech -- it requires excess. Excess of profanity, excess of provocation, excess of sexually explicit language.

Inherent in the concept of “excess” is intent -- one cannot accidentally be “excessive” in the face of clear rules and repeated warnings. However, speech does not have to be intentionally malicious to violate the Covenant. A member who consistently acts in reckless disregard for the rules and for the wellbeing of other members and the club as a whole can be guilty of Crude Behavior.

In this case, the compiled evidence of Kadrol’s behavior left no doubt that, at the very least, he had acted in reckless disregard for this club and its members. Moreover, his persistence in the face of repeated warnings, chat mutes, and chats bans, coupled with the extremely insensitive and provocative nature of his comments, particularly those related to slavery, were strongly suggestive of intent.

It is an open question whether any one of these incidents would merit charges on its own. The Chamber did not have to confront that question, however, because Kadrol’s behavior in official DJB and clan chats, taken as a whole, painted a clear portrait of a member unconcerned with chat rules, the conduct requirements of the Covenant, official warnings by his leadership, or -- most importantly -- the wellbeing and enjoyment of his fellow members.


This is the second case in a row resolved by a guilty plea. In DB vs. Arvalis Raith, 058 DB, the Defendant confessed to the charges presented by the Chamber and received a reduced sentence as a result. The Chamber determined that Arvalis showed genuine regret for his actions and wished to atone for them. As the decision in that case instructed, atonement is essential in deciding whether a guilty plea should be considered as a mitigating factor during sentencing.

In this case, Kadrol Hauen has not demonstrated remorse for his actions nor indicated an understanding that he did anything wrong. In fact, shortly after entering his guilty plea he contacted a member he believed to be involved in this case and asked “Wtf?” The Chamber believes that Kadrol’s guilty plea was driven by a desire to resolve the case and implement the sentence as soon as possible. As such, the Chamber has determined that the guilty plea in this case does not merit a reduced sentence.

Finally, this case is also unusual in that the Defendant is already on probation for prior unrelated Covenant violations. In DB v. Kadrol Hauen/Fallitar, 056 DB, Kadrol was convicted of creating a clone account named “Fallitar” and using that clone to facilitate competition cheating. Due to a stint in the rogues, Kadrol’s general probation for that conviction currently extends until October 24, 2018.

In the past, members have been charged with Violation of Probation for re-offending while still on probation. Most of those cases involved either the exact same conduct for which the person was originally convicted, or a violation of an express term of the probation. Sentencing for Violation of Probation was uniformly harsh, including multiple-rank demotions.

The new Covenant does not identify probation violation as a discrete chargeable offense, but it does make clear that the basic purpose of probation is to put a judgment of the Chamber into full effect. In this case, Kadrol has not committed the same offense for which he was originally placed on probation, nor has he violated an express condition of his probation. Rather, he has violated a necessary and implied condition of all probation: good behavior. Violating the Covenant for a second time while already on probation is therefore an aggravating factor that must be considered during sentencing.

Here, Kadrol has not committed the same offense for which he was placed on probation, which significantly reduces the severity of his probation violation. In this case, the appropriate sentence enhancement is to convert his remaining general probation into strict probation and remove his progress towards the rank of Journeyman 4.

The remaining portions of his sentence, including the Letter of Reprimand, communications ban, and general probation, are a direct and tailored result of his underlying conviction for Crude Behavior.

The Chamber hopes that a cooling-off period will help Kadrol reset his priorities in this club, understand the importance of adhering to its rules, and be appreciate the effect of his choices on the wellbeing of himself and others.


/s/ Dacien Victae

Points of Interest

Kadrol had been previously tried in CoJ Case 056.