![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: League Office (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Punishments (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=279)
+--- Thread: LB3737 Tampering Punishment (/showthread.php?tid=28196)
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - Memento Mori - 12-11-2020
(12-11-2020, 04:34 PM)Punter715 Wrote:Just had a look through the last few seasons' rule summits, the two most recent proposals were following another harsh tampering ruling where a user was punished for trying to encourage an IA user to return to the league because said IA user decided to retire his player and recreate rather than reviving his 57 TPE IA player from 4 draft classes ago.(12-11-2020, 03:39 PM)Memento Mori Wrote: It would be making a rule proposal to change the tampering rules. Which we all know is never going to pass, because it's GMs and HO who vote on rule proposals.
Yeah that's what I was alluding to. It's fine to say, "make a change proposal" but I have a sneaking suspicion the league has gone down that road before and it's never been changed.
Guess what? GMs wouldn't even vote to allow the tampering of IA players under 200 TPE. Encouraging people to write rule proposals is just complete BS, imo.
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - AdamS - 12-12-2020
I'm not gonna quote all that for brevity @"Punter715" @Memento Mori
if your goal is to remove tampering those will be the results...gms will never allow it..even in leagues built on it
If you wish to lessen then impact of tampering on first time offenders or create a set amount of punishments based on severity/situation/etc...that's a different proposition
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - .Laser - 12-12-2020
Speaking for myself here - I think that speaking as a general rule, the punishment given out here, which is the standard for tampering, is a good punishment for an offense by a current GM or war room member. Depending on severity and cover ups it may not be enough but is a good standard for these people because they would have the motivation. However I do think that it should be edited for regular users without any war room or GM positions to be something a little less restrictive but also make it as impactful to the user as loss of a GM job would be. I have no idea what that would be though.
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - siddhus - 12-12-2020
Just curious why this was punished more than https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=23388 .
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - Air Crou - 12-12-2020
(12-09-2020, 02:20 PM)Opera_Phantom Wrote:(12-09-2020, 01:27 PM)SchwarzNarr Wrote: Man two punishment threads in such a short time. One thing is clear - the offseason of the Bachelorette made the league behave. This past offseason, no bachelorette, and everyone gettin' in trouble.
#bringbacktheBachelorette
Facts are facts.
Hell NO!
(12-09-2020, 04:35 PM)TeyonSchavari Wrote: Feels a bit harsh to me, but my hope is that this was done with past precedent in mind in order to keep consistency and with the thought of appeals possibly lowering the sentence. If I were HO I would have looked at the Zamir case and gone off that, which seems to be what happened. Would I have pushed for the same punishment that Zamir? Probably not. But this is what appeals is for - hope they lighten up the punishment.
Have the appeals team ever reduced a punishment? More often than not, they uphold the decision unanimously, even even have the AUDACITY of pointing the finger and saying that people shouldn't appear everything.
(12-10-2020, 11:20 AM)retrospace111 Wrote: Lmfao get fucked @LB3737
OH HE IS BACK!
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - AdamS - 12-12-2020
(12-12-2020, 01:11 AM)siddhus Wrote: Just curious why this was punished more than https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=23388 .to quote the thread "no direct and explicit attempt at persuasion"
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - Memento Mori - 12-12-2020
(12-12-2020, 12:16 AM)AdamS Wrote: I'm not gonna quote all that for brevity @"Punter715" @Memento MoriWe addressed that a little too but to expand on it: rule proposals need every GM's consent and the consent of at least 1 HO member, or all HO members and 10/14 GMs (assuming 5 voting HO members as there has been in each of the last few seasons).
if your goal is to remove tampering those will be the results...gms will never allow it..even in leagues built on it
If you wish to lessen then impact of tampering on first time offenders or create a set amount of punishments based on severity/situation/etc...that's a different proposition
If we accept the idea that GMs will never allow tampering, I find it hard to imagine they'll vote to reduce the deterrent and probably make tampering more common. How could we reduce the punishment for first-time offenders/offenders who aren't GMs or in war rooms? If we take away the GM ban, wealthier league users can take the hit and might think it's worthwhile for them to tamper someone if they've not been caught before. If we take away the fine so that newer or less active users aren't hit so hard, these less active users who almost-definitely wouldn't GM anyway can go for it along with anyone else not interested in becoming GM. We'd surely need every GM, or close to it, to vote for this proposal because...
HO. Every rule proposal needs consent of at least one HO member to pass. Currently, the tampering rules give HO lots of power because the punishment isn't written in the rules and they can decide to punish it how they wish. The only punishments that are are cap punishments. Even contract punishments (which are just as dry) are decided by HO rather than mandated by the rulebook. Even if every GM votes to make tampering punished less harshly, then you still need a HO member to vote to reduce its own power. If 'only' 71% of GMs vote to make tampering punished less harshly, you need every HO member to vote to reduce the power of HO. I've seen a case as recently as this season where HO decided it didn't like what the rulebook said in relation to a particular issue so ignored it, do you really think that GMs are going to vote to potentially increase the prevalence of tampering and HO vote to reduce it's own power?
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - .Laser - 12-12-2020
(12-12-2020, 07:24 AM)Air Crou Wrote: Have the appeals team ever reduced a punishment? More often than not, they uphold the decision unanimously, even even have the AUDACITY of pointing the finger and saying that people shouldn't appear everything.We actually overturn or reduce at least half of the cases we hear at this point. Unanimous decisions are not frequent and I don't believe any of us have ever said not to appeal everything.
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - PMoney - 12-12-2020
(12-12-2020, 06:39 PM)Laser Wrote: We actually overturn or reduce at least half of the cases we hear at this point. Unanimous decisions are not frequent and I don't believe any of us have ever said not to appeal everything.
Joe did post that on the Yellowknife Bot appeals but it was clearly in a joking manner.
Appeals does a good job though and I dont get the hate for it.
RE: LB3737 Tampering Punishment - AdamS - 12-12-2020
@Memento Mori ho repeatedly chooses to give up power. And hates getting ranted at for hours by gms whose player just got caught breaking rules.
If you don't get a sympathetic ear for a proposal from a gm, you'd likely find one from an ho member. And I won't say what I'd do if my gm refused to propose for me on a topic I felt strongly about.