HO Is Fun

[TomHanks]

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.

Just for clarity’s sake, are you referring the the butter tampering case in your example? Because the first butter tampering case was a carbon copy of yours lmao
1. He wasn’t in the war room
2. He definitely wasn’t lined up to be co-GM
3. The player in question referenced potentially opting out
4. Butter made a comment that “Safety is kind of a need” in New Orleans, which lead to the punishment

Your argument is based on the two events being completely different. They weren’t. Talk to anyone who was around when that happened