[div align=\\\"center\\\"]In Defense of the Indefensible[/div]
“VI. Other
- No multis. If caught the multi will be deleted and the player will be subject to discipline”
But why though?
This is my first sim league and my lack of experience is something I acknowledge from the jump. All else equal, I should, and will, defer to those who have been around longer than me. This is not my first-time crafting policies however, and it certainly isn’t my first time analyzing policies that have already been established. It is that experience that I lean on from here on out.
In constitutional law, there is a common test called rational basis. The premise being that, for any law to withstand a challenge, at the very least it must be rationally related to a legitimate, well-found government interest. A salary cap? Regression? Waiver rules? All three, and nearly every other rule in the rulebook, seem to serve a legitimate interest for the league. The one exception? Rule VI, Bullet point 1: No Multis. There are rules and regulations that are arbitrary to be sure, but while perhaps indicative of a lack of experience, this is the only rule that doesn’t have an apparent rational basis. To the uninitiated, the rule smacks of dogma. There are few more dangerous sentences in the English language than “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” and, even in conversations with more experienced sim leaguers than I, that appears to be the sole justification. I have no doubt that there will be response from those in the HO among others with rationalizations for the rule, but, on a fundamental level, I believe the community would survive without it. After all, I’m not quite sure the harm that would befall the NSFL if someone was so inclined as to be active on two accounts (the obvious exception being avoiding punishment for abusive behavior).
But I didn’t sit down today with the intention of changing a rule, my goals are bigger than that. At the end of the day, it seems to me that the driving force for the league, its raison d'être, is to maximize the enjoyment of all the participants. I am concerned that yesterday’s front office ruling does not achieve that goal. First and foremost, there is evidence that user dustyatters is not a Noble multi account. Although there’s no way of knowing one way or another, given the uncertainty, I think it best to err on the side of caution. The drawbacks of banning a user, especially one with an apparent league interest, are concrete and significant, preventing someone from experiencing the genuine fun of sim leagues. The benefits? Markedly less clear.
Additionally, this does seem to be a rather classic case of piling on. As has been mentioned, RainDelay and I share an IP address when we’re at school, as do three other users. Setting a standard in which the black sheep is slaughtered for sharing an IP but model members aren’t given a second thought is concerning to me. The fact that RainDelay and I are in good standing while Noble is not, is a result of our respective actions. Noble obviously has a much spottier record than either of us. But the fact remains that the same basic set of evidence – multiple accounts emanating from one IP address – should produce the same investigation and, in most cases, the same result. While there is other circumstantial evidence in the case of Noble’s account, it appears that the decision was made long before that evidence was taken into account.
Finally, and I suppose this runs counter to the prior themes of precedent and fair governance. Noble has a track record of really contributing to the league. We can all speak to the many hats he wore in the early stages of getting this all off the ground and the amount of work he put in, even if the S2 Top-50 was bullshit. But beyond that, speaking as an individual, Noble made a big difference for me early on in the league. Outside of RD, Noble may have been the most important person in navigating me through this process. His work has added a level of depth to the league that may not have otherwise existed. Obviously, there is no room for special treatment, but when what amounts to the sim league “death penalty” is on the table, mitigating factors ought to be taken into account.
I will be the first to admit that Noble has made mistakes. He has without question violated the trust of this community. Based solely on his actions on these boards, he’s something of a narcissistic prick, popularity in Saskatoon be damned. But every decision should satisfy the basic condition that, on balance, it helps achieve an organization or group’s central goal. And if we agree that the goal of the league is maximize the enjoyment of the members, in the case of banning Noble, a troubled but incredibly participatory member, and a potentially innocent user such as dustyatters, I don’t believe we’re achieving the goal.
@Noble
@Ballerstorm
@RainDelay
@`dustyatters`
@Sweetwater
“VI. Other
- No multis. If caught the multi will be deleted and the player will be subject to discipline”
But why though?
This is my first sim league and my lack of experience is something I acknowledge from the jump. All else equal, I should, and will, defer to those who have been around longer than me. This is not my first-time crafting policies however, and it certainly isn’t my first time analyzing policies that have already been established. It is that experience that I lean on from here on out.
In constitutional law, there is a common test called rational basis. The premise being that, for any law to withstand a challenge, at the very least it must be rationally related to a legitimate, well-found government interest. A salary cap? Regression? Waiver rules? All three, and nearly every other rule in the rulebook, seem to serve a legitimate interest for the league. The one exception? Rule VI, Bullet point 1: No Multis. There are rules and regulations that are arbitrary to be sure, but while perhaps indicative of a lack of experience, this is the only rule that doesn’t have an apparent rational basis. To the uninitiated, the rule smacks of dogma. There are few more dangerous sentences in the English language than “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” and, even in conversations with more experienced sim leaguers than I, that appears to be the sole justification. I have no doubt that there will be response from those in the HO among others with rationalizations for the rule, but, on a fundamental level, I believe the community would survive without it. After all, I’m not quite sure the harm that would befall the NSFL if someone was so inclined as to be active on two accounts (the obvious exception being avoiding punishment for abusive behavior).
But I didn’t sit down today with the intention of changing a rule, my goals are bigger than that. At the end of the day, it seems to me that the driving force for the league, its raison d'être, is to maximize the enjoyment of all the participants. I am concerned that yesterday’s front office ruling does not achieve that goal. First and foremost, there is evidence that user dustyatters is not a Noble multi account. Although there’s no way of knowing one way or another, given the uncertainty, I think it best to err on the side of caution. The drawbacks of banning a user, especially one with an apparent league interest, are concrete and significant, preventing someone from experiencing the genuine fun of sim leagues. The benefits? Markedly less clear.
Additionally, this does seem to be a rather classic case of piling on. As has been mentioned, RainDelay and I share an IP address when we’re at school, as do three other users. Setting a standard in which the black sheep is slaughtered for sharing an IP but model members aren’t given a second thought is concerning to me. The fact that RainDelay and I are in good standing while Noble is not, is a result of our respective actions. Noble obviously has a much spottier record than either of us. But the fact remains that the same basic set of evidence – multiple accounts emanating from one IP address – should produce the same investigation and, in most cases, the same result. While there is other circumstantial evidence in the case of Noble’s account, it appears that the decision was made long before that evidence was taken into account.
Finally, and I suppose this runs counter to the prior themes of precedent and fair governance. Noble has a track record of really contributing to the league. We can all speak to the many hats he wore in the early stages of getting this all off the ground and the amount of work he put in, even if the S2 Top-50 was bullshit. But beyond that, speaking as an individual, Noble made a big difference for me early on in the league. Outside of RD, Noble may have been the most important person in navigating me through this process. His work has added a level of depth to the league that may not have otherwise existed. Obviously, there is no room for special treatment, but when what amounts to the sim league “death penalty” is on the table, mitigating factors ought to be taken into account.
I will be the first to admit that Noble has made mistakes. He has without question violated the trust of this community. Based solely on his actions on these boards, he’s something of a narcissistic prick, popularity in Saskatoon be damned. But every decision should satisfy the basic condition that, on balance, it helps achieve an organization or group’s central goal. And if we agree that the goal of the league is maximize the enjoyment of the members, in the case of banning Noble, a troubled but incredibly participatory member, and a potentially innocent user such as dustyatters, I don’t believe we’re achieving the goal.
@
@Ballerstorm
@RainDelay
@`dustyatters`
@Sweetwater
[div align=center]
[div align=center]
[div align=center]