Moderation Suspension

[Squamish]

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.

What is the precedent? Also, if there was precedent, why did that not lead to a clarification of the rule in the rulebook? We can expect new users to look at the rulebook - we can't expect them to look into every previous punishment handed out.

[37thchamber]

What is the precedent? Also, if there was precedent, why did that not lead to a clarification of the rule in the rulebook? We can expect new users to look at the rulebook - we can't expect them to look into every previous punishment handed out.

Nobody is expecting new users to look at previous punishments. That's not my point. That's not anyone's point. The point is simple: there is an established precedent which HO has to follow. They did that, and gave their reasoning as to why.

So... why is there a problem?

While I think the rule is silly, I can't call this unfair because it's being applied entirely fairly. I don't think there should have been a suspension last time either, but I understood why it happened.

It also doesn't matter what Pens thinks is valid reasoning, since he didn't write the rule. If I think I have valid reasoning to steal bread from a market to feed my starving child, that doesn't make it valid reasoning. What is valid is defined by the league.

Now that this issue is being discussed for the second time, maybe the rule will be clarified. By all means, press for that. But retroactively changing a decision based on a future rule amendment is even worse than if they'd not punished Pens at all for this infraction, imo.

[Squamish]

Nobody is expecting new users to look at previous punishments. That's not my point. That's not anyone's point. The point is simple: there is an established precedent which HO has to follow. They did that, and gave their reasoning as to why.

So... why is there a problem?

While I think the rule is silly, I can't call this unfair because it's being applied entirely fairly. I don't think there should have been a suspension last time either, but I understood why it happened.

It also doesn't matter what Pens thinks is valid reasoning, since he didn't write the rule. If I think I have valid reasoning to steal bread from a market to feed my starving child, that doesn't make it valid reasoning. What is valid is defined by the league.

Now that this issue is being discussed for the second time, maybe the rule will be clarified. By all means, press for that. But retroactively changing a decision based on a future rule amendment is even worse than if they'd not punished Pens at all for this infraction, imo.

I'm just saying that "what is valid is defined by the league" is only fine if it's actually defined. Precedent is all well and good, but if it's not in the rulebook, no one is going to know it's a thing, so it's unreasonable to hold someone to a standard they don't know is the standard. In an instance where precedent is violated but a rule isn't outright broken, what I would do (independently of what the league would do, or has done) is explain to the person why what they've done violates precedent, put it in the rulebook for future times, and let that one go since it's not in the rulebook (or is, but isn't clear). This is the case (again, just in my opinion) regardless of the nature of the infraction - and yes, it can lead to people getting away with some big things, if it's not clear.

Obviously they have chosen to do it differently, and that's fine, just speaking my mind here.

Independently of this discussion: can you link me to the precedent? I'd like to read up on it.

[37thchamber]

it's unreasonable to hold someone to a standard they don't know is the standard.

If I do something I don't know is a crime, should I not be punished?

[bovovovo]

Independently of this discussion: can you link me to the precedent? I'd like to read up on it.

So this happened -> http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=58011

Note that's written in character by a dude who was basically a troll, but essentially a GM deleted one of his posts where he was intentionally stirring the pot... here's the tldr from him: http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=58025

So then this happened -> http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=58417

Note that the punishment was also the creation of the "abuse of mod powers" rule. Before that ruling abusing mod powers wasn't actually in the rule book, but they obviously had to do something about it regardless

EDIT: it's kinda fun to go back through all that lol such a crazy time

[Squamish]

If I do something I don't know is a crime, should I not be punished?

I mean this isn't real life, it's a sim league - but at the same time, I personally would not punish you for it in real life, if you can objectively prove you didn't know. The major crimes, those which are universal, everyone knows are illegal. There are 0 people in the world who don't know murder is a crime, for example (except babies, and who is a baby going to murder?). I know realistically you would be punished (and I'm not about to lead a crusade against laws around the world), but I personally would not, because if you don't know it's a crime then it's almost certainly a minor thing. Either that or some backwards ass country has banned something that's not really an issue.

A case where someone doesn't know something is a crime - I can see that coming up in things like cultural differences. Someone does a thing while on vacation that is fine in their country, but isn't in the new country. Anything that is illegal in one place and legal in another can't honestly be a big issue - I'm not trying to arrest someone for going to Canada, buying a Kinder Surprise with candy in it, and then bringing it back into the states, for example. Or things like gay rights in Russia, or women's rights in certain middle eastern countries - no, I don't think these groups should be punished just because they travel to some backwards ass place. However, my answer to this is starting to border on a political discussion, so let's not.

[bovovovo]

[Squamish]

So this happened -> http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=58011

Note that's written in character by a dude who was basically a troll, but essentially a GM deleted one of his posts where he was intentionally stirring the pot... here's the tldr from him: http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=58025

So then this happened -> http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=58417

Note that the punishment was also the creation of the "abuse of mod powers" rule. Before that ruling abusing mod powers wasn't actually in the rule book, but they obviously had to do something about it regardless

EDIT: it's kinda fun to go back through all that lol such a crazy time

Logical steps of action I'd say, and on board with all of it. I'd still be inclined to fight for a rewording of the rule, as this incident is nothing like that incident (an additional 275 TPE creates a player advantage in the sim that isn't there in this incident). It's definitely a good rule to have, don't get me wrong, I just think if this has come up twice, there's obviously a problem with the wording.

[bovovovo]

Logical steps of action I'd say, and on board with all of it. I'd still be inclined to fight for a rewording of the rule, as this incident is nothing like that incident (an additional 275 TPE creates a player advantage in the sim that isn't there in this incident). It's definitely a good rule to have, don't get me wrong, I just think if this has come up twice, there's obviously a problem with the wording.

The accidental TPE thing is kinda beside the point, it really concerns the abuse of mod powers thing. In that case it was deleting somebody else’s post, even though they were a troll. In this case it’s editing a bunch of player page topics and one player name. I don’t think wording had anything to do with the first ruling as far as I can remember. But that was the case that birthed the current abuse of mod powers rule.

Fun little nsfl history for ya lol

[iamslm22]

The accidental TPE thing is kinda beside the point, it really concerns the abuse of mod powers thing. In that case it was deleting somebody else’s post, even though they were a troll. In this case it’s editing a bunch of player page topics and one player name. I don’t think wording had anything to do with the first ruling as far as I can remember. But that was the case that birthed the current abuse of mod powers rule.

Fun little nsfl history for ya lol

And for the record Pens IRL friend is the one who wrote that rule. Pens can go yell at Carson for that mistake