Moderation Suspension

[37thchamber]

Because the rule was not explicitly violated. Terms like "valid reasoning" introduce gray area. A rule with a gray area means that there will always be criticism, unless the rule is written to remove the gray area. An argument can be made that he violated the rule, just as an argument can be made that he did not.

If the HO wants to be "transparent and consistent" with rulings, they must also be "transparent and consistent" with defined rules. Pens considered what he did to have valid reasoning, and unless valid reasoning is further defined within the rule, he's right or at least can be seen as right.

Punishing for violating a gray area, for violating what HO consider the rule to be if the rule is not that in its actual words, is guilty until proven innocent.

There is precedent, though. That's a transparent and consistent ruling.

Not knowing it would constitute a violation of a rule doesn't excuse him of breaking a rule, sadly.

Yeah the rule could be more clearly defined, but that's not the argument people are making here. The argument and criticisms I'm seeing are basically "he shouldn't be punished". Which would be to directly contradict their own ruling from a previous case.

Can the rule be amended now? Sure.
But the ruling was made, and was valid. It's how rules work. Precedent is important.