(05-28-2020, 10:21 AM)retrospace111 Wrote:lol precedent is much different from case to case. A case requires precedent when it is similar enough to another case. When two cases are very different then precedent needs to get thrown out the window. Let's make up an example. Let's say there is this player, who isn't a GM, but he is the heir to a  team, and will soon be Co-GM. He's an active war room member and is very active in this team's operations. Let's say this person engages in a contact with a soon to be free agent and tampers them and tries to convince them to come to his team. That's tampering. He had multiple contacts with the person and stayed engaged with them in a conversation. Now there is no precedent for this because this has never happened. So HO says ok 5 Mil fine and 2 seasons of GM ban. Ouch. This dude lost a lot of money and now cannot take up the Co-GM position he was about to take over. Fair ruling IMO, good job HO! Now, you have another guy, this really toxic dude who has not and is not involved with the war room of his team. This guy has no league job, and is not involved with any league operations. Now let's say he's doing some trash talking and then takes a shot at another team's impending free agent and comments on how this guy should come to his team because their team is way better. That's tampering, even if it was a joke. No one's arguing there. That dumbass should have kept his mouth shut. Everyone agrees. Now, HO has a decision. Is there a precedent here for an isolated contact from a random player like this vs the repeated contact from a war room member on a team. HO should determine that no, the two cases differed in severity, and while it may be a joke, it should still be punishable. HO will then say, we will reduce your fine by half compared to the precedent, meaning you are fined 2.5 million, and there is still a ban on GMing for 2 seasons. This is how it should go. Instead, HO will rule that the cases are similar, and then enact the full punishment for this toxic dude.

This is not how it should be, and there should be change. There are always going to be people who disagree with any decision made, and you can't please them all. That's why we have an appeals team, who in theory, should be using an unbiased perspective on the case. In the case that HO made an unfair ruling due to sheer stupidity or because of conflicts of interest, that's where the appellate team steps in and crosses the line. Instead we have a system where the appellate group rarely goes against HO for god knows why. Maybe it's because they don't want to face backlash. Who knows? Something needs to be changed.

(05-28-2020, 12:01 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. For example:

Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).

Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

(05-28-2020, 12:10 PM)Sermokala Wrote:Dwyer should join Ho some time he looks like he has a bright future.

Glad to see the thing he complains about decide to come up immediately in the thread so there's no confusion on why its toxic.

(05-28-2020, 11:01 AM)Memento Mori Wrote:A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. For example:

Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).

Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

(05-28-2020, 08:21 AM)retrospace111 Wrote:lol precedent is much different from case to case. A case requires precedent when it is similar enough to another case. When two cases are very different then precedent needs to get thrown out the window. Let's make up an example. Let's say there is this player, who isn't a GM, but he is the heir to a  team, and will soon be Co-GM. He's an active war room member and is very active in this team's operations. Let's say this person engages in a contact with a soon to be free agent and tampers them and tries to convince them to come to his team. That's tampering. He had multiple contacts with the person and stayed engaged with them in a conversation. Now there is no precedent for this because this has never happened. So HO says ok 5 Mil fine and 2 seasons of GM ban. Ouch. This dude lost a lot of money and now cannot take up the Co-GM position he was about to take over. Fair ruling IMO, good job HO! Now, you have another guy, this really toxic dude who has not and is not involved with the war room of his team. This guy has no league job, and is not involved with any league operations. Now let's say he's doing some trash talking and then takes a shot at another team's impending free agent and comments on how this guy should come to his team because their team is way better. That's tampering, even if it was a joke. No one's arguing there. That dumbass should have kept his mouth shut. Everyone agrees. Now, HO has a decision. Is there a precedent here for an isolated contact from a random player like this vs the repeated contact from a war room member on a team. HO should determine that no, the two cases differed in severity, and while it may be a joke, it should still be punishable. HO will then say, we will reduce your fine by half compared to the precedent, meaning you are fined 2.5 million, and there is still a ban on GMing for 2 seasons. This is how it should go. Instead, HO will rule that the cases are similar, and then enact the full punishment for this toxic dude.

This is not how it should be, and there should be change. There are always going to be people who disagree with any decision made, and you can't please them all. That's why we have an appeals team, who in theory, should be using an unbiased perspective on the case. In the case that HO made an unfair ruling due to sheer stupidity or because of conflicts of interest, that's where the appellate team steps in and crosses the line. Instead we have a system where the appellate group rarely goes against HO for god knows why. Maybe it's because they don't want to face backlash. Who knows? Something needs to be changed.