Moderation Suspension

[tbone415]

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?

@Squamish what do you have to say about this?

[Squamish]

@Squamish what do you have to say about this?

Already have

[tbone415]

Already have

So in your mind, changing a players name is just fine right?

[bovovovo]

(because we shouldn't be determining valid reasoning on a case by case basis)

You don't think cases of possible rule-breaking should be looked at on a case by case basis before dealing out the punishment?

I'm guessing you misspoke about this, right? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting?

[AdamS]

I'm glad we're working on fixing wording. That needs to be done. It should have already been done, but you guys are taking a proactive step to do so, and I appreciate that. If you need a strong writer to look over them, I'd be glad to do so. However, this isn't even a loophole - it's just flat out a rule that says nothing.

He's not "my guy" I've seen him in discord a few times but have never even had a conversation with him, I just think he's getting screwed here by an ambiguous rule. It's nearly impossible to remove all ambiguity, but it's possible and fairly simple to remove much of it.

sorry..you're accepting media money

you're his lawyer now....them's the breaks


as for the rest..its mostly a case of the people in charge now in terms of both HO and GMs are an almost completely different group from any time before season 4...so a whole lot of shit is stuff none of us wrote that we don't necessarily see until it becomes an issue

[Squamish]

So in your mind, changing a players name is just fine right?

Then you didn't read anything I said and already had your mind up what it was.

Changing a name is not fine, but it's not explicitly outlined in the rules. A rule should be added or clarified stating what can and can't be done.

Why is it that the other people arguing in here are doing so fairly respectfully, arguing the points as they are ( :cheers: iamslm22, AdamS, and bovovovo - I may disagree with you but I respect the way this is being handled) and you're being a dick about it?

[Squamish]

You don't think cases of possible rule-breaking should be looked at on a case by case basis before dealing out the punishment?

I'm guessing you misspoke about this, right? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting?

I didn't misspeak and you're not misinterpreting. I think there should be no cases of "possible" rule breaking. It either clearly and explicitly broke a rule, as can be pointed to exactly, or if it's ambiguous, then it did not break a rule (no matter what it is or how "bad") and a rule must be created or reworded to address it.

Clearly you guys do not agree. I understand that, just want to clarify what exactly my stance is.

[Squamish]

sorry..you're accepting media money

you're his lawyer now....them's the breaks 


as for the rest..its mostly a case of the people in charge now in terms of both HO and GMs are an almost completely different group from any time before season 4...so a whole lot of shit is stuff none of us wrote that we don't necessarily see until it becomes an issue

I can definitely respect that. New people coming in, doing it on the fly, things will slip through (although I think if something slips through, then it should be allowed in the first case, when it doesn't break a rule - if they noticed it before you guys did, good on them and all). Nonetheless, good proactive step looking at rules to change them. Perhaps this incident will spur on a thorough reading of the rulebook for such loopholes. I'd gladly help with that if you're interested.

[bovovovo]

I didn't misspeak and you're not misinterpreting. I think there should be no cases of "possible" rule breaking. It either clearly and explicitly broke a rule, as can be pointed to exactly, or if it's ambiguous, then it did not break a rule (no matter what it is or how "bad") and a rule must be created or reworded to address it.

Clearly you guys do not agree. I understand that, just want to clarify what exactly my stance is.

Ok gotcha. I can respect you sticking by that even if I disagree completely lol

To me, that's just not how it works in the real world. That's not how court cases work, that's not how regulatory powers work, that's not how judicial authorities work, that's not how it works if you get written up at your job, etc. I think it's unrealistic to think we can write rules that encompass every single possible situation to the point that we don't need to worry about context or any other factors (I think I said that earlier though). It'd be chaos if HO or anybody else wasn't allowed to interpret the meaning behind the rules

[Squamish]

Ok gotcha. I can respect you sticking by that even if I disagree completely lol

To me, that's just not how it works in the real world. That's not how court cases work, that's not how regulatory powers work, that's not how judicial authorities work, that's not how it works if you get written up at your job, etc. I think it's unrealistic to think we can write rules that encompass every single possible situation to the point that we don't need to worry about context or any other factors (I think I said that earlier though). It'd be chaos if HO or anybody else wasn't allowed to interpret the meaning behind the rules

It probably is unrealistic to write rules that encompass every possible situation. It is certainly not unrealistic to write rules that are more clear than those we have, and encompass more situations even if not every. Which is why I'm saying that someone should probably go through that, whether it changes anything about this particular case or not. I could do so, for some small reward of money or something (even if it's just that any rules newly written or rewritten can be put into a media, and that's paid out like a normal media is). If you'd rather someone who is outside of the case, or someone higher up in the league, I understand that as well.