@amjohnson636 has appealed their leaking punishment found here: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthre...?tid=52289
The basis of the appeal at large is that the individual's conduct does not rise to the definition of leaking because of the lack of particularity in the information discussed as well as other arguments involving, inter alia, impact on the community and so on.
At least since the iteration of the present rulebook, leaking incidents have always been strictly enforced. As cited by Head Office, many leaking punishments have indeed resulted by mistake or accident. The instant case is similar in that the appellant clearly intended to make certain comments in the war room section of the locker room as opposed to a public facing area. However, precedent is also clear that impact on the community is not a defense. Aside from any relevant cited precedent, in the TomHanks incident (here), TomHanks leaked a late draft pick to a former war room member who was also a player in the upcoming draft. Arguably, this leak did not circulate beyond the former war room member, and, being a late round pick, also did not impact mock drafts, etc. Therefore, it could be said that it did less harm to the community. However, it was still punished, even after self-reporting the incident.
The theory behind leaking enforcement has never changed. League leadership cannot open the door to loopholes, exceptions, technicalities, or room for abuse. In order to maintain the sanctity of the draft experience (a special and truly unique aspect of sim leagues), all players should steer clear of anything that speaks to draft results – even in the vaguest of terms.
The fine amount is consistent with precedent. Therefore, Appeals has voted to uphold the decision.
The vote was unanimous.
The basis of the appeal at large is that the individual's conduct does not rise to the definition of leaking because of the lack of particularity in the information discussed as well as other arguments involving, inter alia, impact on the community and so on.
At least since the iteration of the present rulebook, leaking incidents have always been strictly enforced. As cited by Head Office, many leaking punishments have indeed resulted by mistake or accident. The instant case is similar in that the appellant clearly intended to make certain comments in the war room section of the locker room as opposed to a public facing area. However, precedent is also clear that impact on the community is not a defense. Aside from any relevant cited precedent, in the TomHanks incident (here), TomHanks leaked a late draft pick to a former war room member who was also a player in the upcoming draft. Arguably, this leak did not circulate beyond the former war room member, and, being a late round pick, also did not impact mock drafts, etc. Therefore, it could be said that it did less harm to the community. However, it was still punished, even after self-reporting the incident.
The theory behind leaking enforcement has never changed. League leadership cannot open the door to loopholes, exceptions, technicalities, or room for abuse. In order to maintain the sanctity of the draft experience (a special and truly unique aspect of sim leagues), all players should steer clear of anything that speaks to draft results – even in the vaguest of terms.
The fine amount is consistent with precedent. Therefore, Appeals has voted to uphold the decision.
The vote was unanimous.