Moderation Suspension

Squamish · 02-26-2018, 08:55 AM

(02-26-2018, 09:50 AM)AdamS Wrote:it has been less than 2 seasons since there was an uproar over someone doing something very similar and NOT being punished, so that's hilarious

HO at the time's argument was even the same as the argument being used here...some vague part of the rule that left an out that made it maaaaaaaaaybe not completely against the rules

Anyway. Back to the line of reasoning that says that he couldn't have known....and that's why he should be editing things.

I wasn't here 2 seasons ago. Nonetheless, it's not about a vague part of the rule that made it maybe not completely against the rules, it's about a vague entire rule that is so undefined that there is no action that guaranteed violates it. Every possible action that could be said to violate that rule could also be said not to, and that's a problem with the rule and its phrasing.

If you guys had issues with vague rules 2 seasons ago, and are again having issues with vague rules, then maybe it should be apparent there's an issue with having vague rules in the first place.

iamslm22 · 02-26-2018, 09:00 AM

(02-26-2018, 03:49 AM)Symmetrik Wrote:It depends what was changed IMO if it's valid reasoning or not.

If players were missing draft season or position from the title I would say it's valid.

If it was about hyphens/brackets/parentheses etc, I would say it's not valid. It looks nice but if all the information is there I don't really see an excuse to do it.

It was about hyphens / brackets / parentheses. Like LB was changed to Linebacker. There's also nowhere where the exact formatting is told, so I have no idea where Pens is saying he got this information from.

DeathOnReddit · 02-26-2018, 09:01 AM

(02-26-2018, 09:02 AM)Squamish Wrote:Except he didn't. He broke HO's interpretation of the rules - and if there's room to interpret a rule, the rule is poor.

If it's so plain and simple, then please list all things that are valid reasoning and all things that are not, such that it would be agreed upon by 100% of people. If such a thing can't be done, then the phrase "valid reasoning" should either not be in a rule, or should be further defined.

If I find out he changed all of my players roster pages without my, or HOs permission, I would be angry as fuck. Here let me help you find out what is valid, you ask HO.

iamslm22 · 02-26-2018, 09:01 AM

(02-26-2018, 04:26 AM)automatic Wrote:You guys are more out of touch than Roger Godell. It’s really impressive.

Bro I could shit out literal gold and you find a problem with it. If we announced that he did all of this and didn't punish at all I'm 100% certain you would be posting in here talking about how soft HO is.

DeathOnReddit · 02-26-2018, 09:05 AM

(02-26-2018, 10:01 AM)iamslm22 Wrote:Bro I could shit out literal gold and you find a problem with it. If we announced that he did all of this and didn't punish at all I'm 100% certain you would be posting in here talking about how soft HO is.

Like and retweet.

bovovovo · 02-26-2018, 09:08 AM

(02-26-2018, 01:19 AM)Pens Wrote:Rulebook states (Rule VA1)

Any user who abuses moderation powers in order to alter (without permission or valid reasoning) another users post, topic, or reply will be given the follow punishments:

I followed the rules.

You changed the name of a GM-made bot player. Not formatting, you straight up changed the player's name.

How in the world do you have valid reasoning to change somebody else's player name?

iamslm22 · 02-26-2018, 09:10 AM

(02-26-2018, 10:08 AM)bovovovo Wrote:

You changed the name of a GM-made bot player. Not formatting, you straight up changed the player's name.

How in the world do you have valid reasoning to change somebody else's player name?

LOL exactly

Squamish · 02-26-2018, 09:11 AM

(02-26-2018, 10:01 AM)DeathOnReddit Wrote:If I find out he changed all of my players roster pages without my, or HOs permission, I would be angry as fuck. Here let me help you find out what is valid, you ask HO.

You can be as angry as you want, but it wouldn't be explicitly against the rules. Do you ask HO if you can eat a sandwich? If you can leave the site for a few hours to play a game? These things are not against the rules. If everything must be asked of HO, then there is no purpose to a rulebook. If you have a rulebook, then the things contained in it should be self sufficient.

DeathOnReddit · 02-26-2018, 09:14 AM

(02-26-2018, 10:11 AM)Squamish Wrote:You can be as angry as you want, but it wouldn't be explicitly against the rules. Do you ask HO if you can eat a sandwich? If you can leave the site for a few hours to play a game? These things are not against the rules. If everything must be asked of HO, then there is no purpose to a rulebook. If you have a rulebook, then the things contained in it should be self sufficient.

Last time I checked its not against the rules to eat a sandwich. It was against the rules to edit posts. What is so hard to understand?

bovovovo · (This post was last modified: 02-26-2018, 09:19 AM by bovovovo.)

(02-26-2018, 10:11 AM)Squamish Wrote:You can be as angry as you want, but it wouldn't be explicitly against the rules. Do you ask HO if you can eat a sandwich? If you can leave the site for a few hours to play a game? These things are not against the rules. If everything must be asked of HO, then there is no purpose to a rulebook. If you have a rulebook, then the things contained in it should be self sufficient.

Put this earlier, but he changed player names too. Not formatting, straight up changed a GM players bot player.

"You never told me I couldn't" is a terrible defense when you do something that's obviously over the line, such as changing other players names, and it doesn't apply here in my opinion.