Appeals Cases (x5)

[manicmav36]

Normally, we're able to give a bit more of an explanation, but with so many cases in the backlog, we're just going to throw out our decisions with a quick briefing. Please message me or any member of the appeals team if you want more specifics.

1) Yellowknife Twitter Tampering: case can be found here.
Our vote was 3-1 (with 1 abstention) to reduce the fine for user @hihihi_62 to $1,500,000 from the original $2,500,000. We agree that what was said could be construed as tampering, but are under the impression it was meant more in a joking manner. There was no explicit attempt to recruit the player.

2) Dallas OL filler bots: We voted 4-1 in favor of upholding HO's ruling to not allow extra filler bots in the DSFL for backup linemen. It creates unnecessary work for the simmer and takes away snaps (albeit very limited) from human players.

3) NOLA OL bots: punishment seen here. Appeals team has vote 4-0 (with 1 abstention) in favor of upholding the original $3,000,000 fine from HO. NOLA failed to update their bots, and regardless of how big or small the benefit was, they did, in fact, receive a benefit they were not entitled to.

4) Tijuana waiver abuse punishment seen here. Appeals team has voted 5-0 in favor of overturning the fines levied at both @mithrandir and @SwankyPants31. Although we agree that the actions are against the spirit of the DSFL, they were given explicit instructions from user @TomHanks (the DSFL comissioner) that the actions were allowed. We also recommend that user @Ben be investigated for his role in this situation.

5) @shipwreckrising retirement: Although it is widely accepted that you cannot continue to update your player after you retire, it is not a rule specifically listed in the ISFL rule book, unless you also recreate. The user was unaware of this unwritten rule. Appeals team has voted 4-0 to allow user @shipwreckrising to unretire without penalty so that they may continue to update through the end of the season, should they choose to do so. We strongly recommend that the rule be added to both the ISFL and DSFL rulebooks during the off-season.

It's worth noting that the Head Office is not actually required to following our decisions, as appeals team can only offer up recommendations.

[retrospace111]

I’m so glad we have such a fast appeals team!!

“We agree that what was said could be construed as tampering, but are under the impression it was meant more in a joking manner.”

I thought the precedent was that it didn’t matter if it was a joke...

[manicmav36]

I’m so glad we have such a fast appeals team!!

“We agree that what was said could be construed as tampering, but are under the impression it was meant more in a joking manner.”

I thought the precedent was that it didn’t matter if it was a joke...

Many of the users in the cases were notified days, if not weeks, ago. I appreciate your constructive feedback, however.

[mithrandir]

Thank you to the appeals team for unanimously overturning my punishment.

[RotticusScott]

Man I'm super pissed if I'm Zamir right now.

[Ben]

come and get me

[Wombat]

come and get me

self tamper

[C9Van]

5) @shipwreckrising retirement: Although it is widely accepted that you cannot continue to update your player after you retire, it is not a rule specifically listed in the ISFL rule book, unless you also recreate. 

Wait so I could have done a few small updates with Lazzy this season like ACs?

[Nokazoa]

Code:

It's worth noting that the Head Office is not actually required to following our decisions, as appeals team can only offer up recommendations.

Wait so you guys have no actual power? Ho could be like who cares?

[slothfacekilla]

Thank you to the appeals team for unanimously overturning my punishment.

We will get you eventually