Moderation Suspension

[speculadora]

as it pertains to the "or valid reasoning" debate: in the case of editing player pages, I don't think valid reasoning exists without permission. without asking first you create a much bigger problem than the one you "solved" because now someone who's job it is to actually edit those pages has to go through all 24 topics and make sure the ratings, info, etc are still correct. there's a certain amount of common sense that should be applied here and if we're operating under the assumption he checked the rule before doing this (lol) then he *still* should have checked with HO to determine if his reasoning was valid. even if you want to be pedantic and say the rule is vague, the word valid is still a qualifier there. If HO decides that even though he had reasoning, it was not *valid* reasoning, then the punishment still makes sense in the context of the rule

[tbone415]

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?

No need to call me a dick. How am I not arguing respectfully?

[Squamish]

No need to call me a dick. How am I not arguing respectfully?

You assumed my answer to a question, when I'd already stated differently.

"Changing a player's name is just fine right?"

I'd already stated I didn't think it was fine, yet you put words in my mouth (and when I said I'd already answered, you clearly didn't actually look to see what my answer was, rather you assumed what you thought it would have been). I just think that whether or not it's fine has no bearing on whether or not it's illegal. It's obviously not fine, but to me, the rule isn't specific enough to call it illegal. You said I said it was fine, when I did nothing of the sort.

It came off as dickish. You may not have intended it that way (and please tell me if you didn't - I've had several positive interactions with you on discord, I don't want to think of you as being a dick)

[Squamish]

You assumed my answer to a question, when I'd already stated differently.

"Changing a player's name is just fine right?"

I'd already stated I didn't think it was fine, yet you put words in my mouth (and when I said I'd already answered, you clearly didn't actually look to see what my answer was, rather you assumed what you thought it would have been). I just think that whether or not it's fine has no bearing on whether or not it's illegal. It's obviously not fine, but to me, the rule isn't specific enough to call it illegal. You said I said it was fine, when I did nothing of the sort.

It came off as dickish. You may not have intended it that way (and please tell me if you didn't - I've had several positive interactions with you on discord, I don't want to think of you as being a dick)

Plus, "if that's the case then see ya!" to Pens - that is absolutely dickish. You may feel strongly that he should be punished, but the head of recruitment should never be outright happy that a new member is leaving.

[Supersquare04]

I've changed 2 peoples player creation pages because they were listed as S6 and not S7, should I be banned? (please ban me)

[PaytonM34]

I've changed 2 peoples player creation pages because they were listed as S6 and not S7, should I be banned? (please ban me)

1 season player ban, all money earned so far is forfeited.... Also you have to play for NOLA now

[Supersquare04]

1 season player ban, all money earned so far is forfeited.... Also you have to play for NOLA now

im going inactive, my interest in the league is tainted :cigar:

[iamslm22]

Also you have to play for NOLA now

A bridge too far

[timeconsumer]

Yes, this is now becoming the type of argument I'm used to. Never change NSFL. Never change.

[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.