Task 7.
As many of you may know, I was punished for "tampering", which can be shown here.
I was fined $5M (!) by the head office. I made an appeal, stating that jokes shouldn't be punished and that this is my first offense. The appeals team was more lenient, as they lowered the amount to $2M.
I made several arguments that I should be absolved of this charge, and here were some of my appeals.
1. I pointed out that the official definition of tampering per the rules contains a key phrase noting the purpose of the message.
"...the “purpose of persuading them to join your team” is the key. As can be seen in the private message, they even acknowledged the probability that this was intended as a joke. I have made 0 other contact with this user, joking or not, with the purpose of having them join Tijuana (nor would I, we don’t want bandwagoners joining us in the 11th hour to win the natty, but that’s a separate issue). I believe that this acknowledgement of the possibility of no ill will, along with the lack of evidence of any further action, should clear my name from all punishment."
2. I pointed out that this message did not have anything come to pass.
"...I understand that tampering is a serious offense. However, when looking at this incident in totality, this event does not rise to that standard. I have not interacted with this player since this message, I have not mentioned this interaction publicly, and (as far as I know), this player has not requested a trade at all, let alone to Tijuana. With those circumstances in mind, this does not rise to the level of real punishment..."
3. I commented on the delay between the "offense" and the punishment.
"...if the offense was so egregious to warrant a 5M fine, why did it take 22 days to address it? This seems like bureaucratic slog at the best and malicious prosecution at the worst. I would think that a truly serious charge of tampering would not be leveled almost a full ISFL season after the alleged charge had occurred..."
4. I commented that this was my first offense, which should grant leniency.
"...since this is my first ever offense, no action from any involved parties or teams was taken, and my comment can clearly only be taken as a joke, I believe I should not be punished by subtracting money from my account. Outcome and intent should both be evaluated in a fair judicial review. The intent was not malicious, as stated by both parties. The intent was a joke to add levity and joy to a discord server, while lightly teasing the other teams (let’s be honest, Tijuana has a reputation as the big brother to the rest of the other DSFL teams). The outcome is also not malicious, as no action was ever taken by any involved party when looking at this incident..."
5. I introduced a new punishment concept.
"...I can begrudgingly accept the idea of a probationary period, as this publicly dissuades users from tampering in plain sight under the guise of “jokes”. However, I do not agree to a money fine. As a newer user, I am not particularly wealthy in the ISFL. At the moment of writing this appeal, I have <2M in my bank...The system of punishment being linear overly punishes poor users while not impacting the older users in the slightest. Quite frankly, I would like to make a suggestion to the HO that fines be proportional to the user’s bank account at the time of the notification, so that older users cannot flex their large bank accounts to practically ignore any monetary fines, while newer ones won’t get crippled in their build by the larger burden it places on them..."
Conclusion:
While I was sure that this logically approached idea would clear my name completely, I was only punished for 40% of the initial fine. The LB case from 2020 was used as precedent. I understand where they were coming from, but from what I could gather, my case was much less egregious. At the end of the day, I feel like the appeals team did do their job, even if it was harsher than I would have liked. While doing research into my appeal, I have discovered that Head Office, in my mind, has consistently over-fined users and appeals has had to bring them down to reason. Head Office should not be leaning on Appeals as a backboard to find the correct amount.
I believe the idea of proportional fines is a great idea (seen to be effective for IRL fines in Europe). Using a system of recording the user's bank account and levying a fine relative to that number, this allows for the poorer users to not be financially crippled and for rich users to not as easily be able to just shrug off the smaller fines. Maybe the appeals branch cannot enact this change, and this probably can't be enacted by the PT graders either. However, the more an idea spreads before it's introduction, the more it may be able to grow in the hearts and minds of the people.
As many of you may know, I was punished for "tampering", which can be shown here.
I was fined $5M (!) by the head office. I made an appeal, stating that jokes shouldn't be punished and that this is my first offense. The appeals team was more lenient, as they lowered the amount to $2M.
I made several arguments that I should be absolved of this charge, and here were some of my appeals.
1. I pointed out that the official definition of tampering per the rules contains a key phrase noting the purpose of the message.
"...the “purpose of persuading them to join your team” is the key. As can be seen in the private message, they even acknowledged the probability that this was intended as a joke. I have made 0 other contact with this user, joking or not, with the purpose of having them join Tijuana (nor would I, we don’t want bandwagoners joining us in the 11th hour to win the natty, but that’s a separate issue). I believe that this acknowledgement of the possibility of no ill will, along with the lack of evidence of any further action, should clear my name from all punishment."
2. I pointed out that this message did not have anything come to pass.
"...I understand that tampering is a serious offense. However, when looking at this incident in totality, this event does not rise to that standard. I have not interacted with this player since this message, I have not mentioned this interaction publicly, and (as far as I know), this player has not requested a trade at all, let alone to Tijuana. With those circumstances in mind, this does not rise to the level of real punishment..."
3. I commented on the delay between the "offense" and the punishment.
"...if the offense was so egregious to warrant a 5M fine, why did it take 22 days to address it? This seems like bureaucratic slog at the best and malicious prosecution at the worst. I would think that a truly serious charge of tampering would not be leveled almost a full ISFL season after the alleged charge had occurred..."
4. I commented that this was my first offense, which should grant leniency.
"...since this is my first ever offense, no action from any involved parties or teams was taken, and my comment can clearly only be taken as a joke, I believe I should not be punished by subtracting money from my account. Outcome and intent should both be evaluated in a fair judicial review. The intent was not malicious, as stated by both parties. The intent was a joke to add levity and joy to a discord server, while lightly teasing the other teams (let’s be honest, Tijuana has a reputation as the big brother to the rest of the other DSFL teams). The outcome is also not malicious, as no action was ever taken by any involved party when looking at this incident..."
5. I introduced a new punishment concept.
"...I can begrudgingly accept the idea of a probationary period, as this publicly dissuades users from tampering in plain sight under the guise of “jokes”. However, I do not agree to a money fine. As a newer user, I am not particularly wealthy in the ISFL. At the moment of writing this appeal, I have <2M in my bank...The system of punishment being linear overly punishes poor users while not impacting the older users in the slightest. Quite frankly, I would like to make a suggestion to the HO that fines be proportional to the user’s bank account at the time of the notification, so that older users cannot flex their large bank accounts to practically ignore any monetary fines, while newer ones won’t get crippled in their build by the larger burden it places on them..."
Conclusion:
While I was sure that this logically approached idea would clear my name completely, I was only punished for 40% of the initial fine. The LB case from 2020 was used as precedent. I understand where they were coming from, but from what I could gather, my case was much less egregious. At the end of the day, I feel like the appeals team did do their job, even if it was harsher than I would have liked. While doing research into my appeal, I have discovered that Head Office, in my mind, has consistently over-fined users and appeals has had to bring them down to reason. Head Office should not be leaning on Appeals as a backboard to find the correct amount.
I believe the idea of proportional fines is a great idea (seen to be effective for IRL fines in Europe). Using a system of recording the user's bank account and levying a fine relative to that number, this allows for the poorer users to not be financially crippled and for rich users to not as easily be able to just shrug off the smaller fines. Maybe the appeals branch cannot enact this change, and this probably can't be enacted by the PT graders either. However, the more an idea spreads before it's introduction, the more it may be able to grow in the hearts and minds of the people.
![[Image: 046p.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/BQRV5XSq/046p.png)
