*Bradley Westfield has spent too much TPE

[Jiggly_333]

Y'all are fuckin idiots looking for things to complain about.

[Jiggly_333]

Clearly this is a false flag operation to distract from the fact that Dermott is racist.

[ItsJustBarry]

Y'all are fuckin idiots looking for things to complain about.

STFU with your shitty gifs.

[Jiggly_333]

STFU with your shitty gifs.

Just as soon as you stop spreading dumb conspiracy theories, hun.

[bovovovo]

How much TPE can a player illegally have, have below the min, or have above the max for some kind of punishment to be warranted? Where is that line?

One?

Two?

Three?

Four?

Five?

Six?

Seven?

Eight?

Nine?

Ten?

Eleven?

Twelve?

Thirteen?

Fourteen?

Fifteen?

Sixteen?

Seventeen?

Eighteen?

Nineteen?

Twenty?

Twenty one?

Twenty two?

Twenty three?

Twenty four?

Twenty five?

Twenty six?

Twenty seven?

Twenty eight?

Twenty nine?

Thirty?

Thirty one?

Thirty two?

Thirty three?

Thirty four?

Thirty five?

Thirty six?

Thirty seven?

Thirty eight?

Thirty nine?

Forty?

Forty one?

Forty two?

Forty three?

Forty four?

Forty five?

Forty six?

Forty seven?

Forty eight?

Forty nine?

Fifty?

[Jiggly_333]

How much TPE can a player illegally have, have below the min, or have above the max for some kind of punishment to be warranted? Where is that line?

One?

Two?

Three?

Four?

Five?

Six?

Seven?

Eight?

Nine?

Ten?

Eleven?

Twelve?

Thirteen?

Fourteen?

Fifteen?

Sixteen?

Seventeen?

Eighteen?

Nineteen?

Twenty?

Twenty one?

Twenty two?

Twenty three?

Twenty four?

Twenty five?

Twenty six?

Twenty seven?

Twenty eight?

Twenty nine?

Thirty?

Thirty one?

Thirty two?

Thirty three?

Thirty four?

Thirty five?

Thirty six?

Thirty seven?

Thirty eight?

Thirty nine?

Forty?

Forty one?

Forty two?

Forty three?

Forty four?

Forty five?

Forty six?

Forty seven?

Forty eight?

Forty nine?

Fifty?

No, we must go deeper.

[DeathOnReddit]

Alright fellas lets all chill out

[timeconsumer]

well, its been a while since i studied law or languages, but im pretty sure precedent can't change.
like... that's the point. it's literally "what came before". you can't change the past.

anyway, if the rule the precedent was set referring to has not changed, as you claim, and the circumstances of this offense are sufficiently similar, then the precedent should be followed to maintain consistency. otherwise, any accusation that one of the cases has not been treated fairly is entirely valid (and accurate, for that matter)... which im pretty sure is the entire point here -- and not "omg westfield iz cheeting! banzor! punish teh ottars!" -- apparently, everyone has missed that.

Except pretty much what everyone is saying here, and has been saying, is that the Carmel Gibson ruling way back when was a terrible decision then and still would be today. Why would we go down that path again simply because we did once before? Is improvement carelessly tossed aside for the sake of "Well, this is how we've always done it!" simply because a few users back then like Kristy95 and Archon couldn't let the shit go?

[37thchamber]

Why would we go down that path again simply because we did once before?

like i said, this comparison simply highlights the disparity and unfairness. at no point have i said it should happen again. like with many things in this league, this is an issue of clarity. when things are unclear, people will have problems with it. the fact that the perspective has changed isnt necessarily a bad thing, but it supports the notion that rules appear to be subjective at times.

either we go by the book or we dont. if we're going to cherry pick when we do and when we dont, can we really be surprised if someone calls foul?

like i said with the agent ruling, clarify this in the rule itself going forward. then there wont be any need to have discussions about precedent. the outcome will be codified. *shrug*

[timeconsumer]

like i said, this comparison simply highlights the disparity and unfairness. at no point have i said it should happen again. like with many things in this league, this is an issue of clarity. when things are unclear, people will have problems with it. the fact that the perspective has changed isnt necessarily a bad thing, but it supports the notion that rules appear to be subjective at times.

either we go by the book or we dont. if we're going to cherry pick when we do and when we dont, can we really be surprised if someone calls foul?

like i said with the agent ruling, clarify this in the rule itself going forward. then there wont be any need to have discussions about precedent. the outcome will be codified. *shrug*

Rules will always have grey areas and subjectivity. That's why we put head office members in place to interpret those rules and handle judgements and punishments appropriately. If we try to remove all grey areas and make all rules completely black and white we'll get situations like the Vandals tampering charges in PBE.