Looks like it's time for the inaugural episode of
Tobes: Public Defender
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. maroon, has been libeled against by the contributors of this competitive pocket monster battling message forum.
Firstly, I will dispel this rumor that my client is a snake, an odious and patently ridiculous claim. Mr. maroon is a human being. He is warm-blooded and endothermic, does not to my knowledge ingest small rodents or smaller reptiles, and, most exonerating of all, does not belong to the infraorders
Alethinophidia or
Scolecophidia.
In a more metaphorical sense, the term "snake" can imply deceitfulness and ill intent, hearkening back to the passages of
Genesis. However, I would argue that my client acted altruistically, placing the goals of his teammates before all else. Securing the win was of the utmost significance to his comrades, and I think it unjust to excoriate Mr. maroon for acting in accordance with the prevailing Smogon philosophy that the good of the group supersedes the good of the individual.
However, beyond even that, I find that the court of public opinion is treating it as a "fact" that my client "snaked". I would argue that Mr. Chazm did not take due precautions in constructing the parameters of the arrangement, and that my client violated no provisions, nor did he intend to do so.
I present Exhibit A:
Could this not simply be a mere typo? Note the "distressed" "emoji", indicating a sense of unease or concern. If one were to replace the word "snaking" with "shaking", the message would remain coherent. Which seems more plausible, a verb that describes nervousness for a tense finals match of high consequence, or a mere gerund that would be indicative of malice and confidence that a ruse had been successfully executed?
Exhibit B:
My client's quote, "tbf (abr., to be fair) snaking the no webs deal was something that we had planned for" is ambiguously worded. It does not necessarily convey that he himself meant to renege on an agreement, but instead had expected his opponent to do so himself. I cannot speak for Mr. Chazm's character, but if my client felt that the contract had already been voided via the other party's conduct, then it would of course no longer be binding to himself.
But there remains the most compelling piece of evidence. Reference Exhibit B once more.
"no webs".
Plural.
Go back through my client's replay. You will clearly see that he only used the move Sticky
Web (singular) one (1) time. He in no way violated the letter of the law; he did not use
webs. My client is innocent in intent, fidelity, and performance.
I motion for all charges against Mr. maroon to be dropped immediately, and for an investigation into the faulty Primal Kyogre that he was supplied with to be launched, with the match in question stricken from record pending proof of sabotage.