Faded's Casino Winnings Punishment

[Hallmonitor_20]

Wow he Ocean's eleven'd the casino

[shadyshoelace]

I'm glad HO took the opportunity provided by this additional information coming to light to issue a more appropriate punishment. I also hope that they don't just use this to hand-wave away the questions and criticism surrounding the original punishment, as it still has ramifications for future instances where a punishment for abuse of power may be necessary and for deterrence of future incidents of cheating. I'd love to see continued dialogue from members of HO in that thread to help sort out the remaining concerns of the community.

[Jo3fish5]

Honestly as the only other s23 running back his money should go to me for moral compensation

[SwankyPants31]

This is a much more fair punishment than the original one that was posted. Kudos to HO for taking steps to rectify this situation.

[Jay_Doctor]

Did Ayers win any player awards or get any pro bowl nods? If so, I would say that they should be forfeited to whoever the runner up would be.

[AdamS]

That's how you stick the landing.

Past HO groups might have continued to circle the wagons and doubled down on being right and the entire world being wrong. It's commendable and should be noted that this HO met the criticism and changed course. Especially the open ended requirement to review any future attempt to hold a league job. That's a tremendous precedent.

Even if it may have felt silly to dock things from someone who isn't actually here, it sends a needed message that large scale cheating in this league will not be met with a pat on the head and a "awww you'll do better next time champ" attitude. Wanting to be kind to people is admirable. It's just not a good idea when said people are flagrantly abusing the league
Andd the league is better for this result because the user base will be more confident that the game they're playing is on an even playing field and that people who feel the need to fuck up a hobby will be dealt with.

[NicholasTheGreat]

So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

[iStegosauruz]

So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

TPE was taken based off illegally earned money he exchanged for TPE (i.e. WTs, equipment, etc).

Giving him back the illegal money would be like someone robbing a bank, purchasing a TV with the money they stole, getting caught by the police and being given back the money they shouldn't have had to begin with as a condition of returning the TV. 

In this situation he shouldn't have had the money and as a result shouldn't have also had the TPE that was associated with the purchases he used the money on. Both got forfeited as a result.

[NicholasTheGreat]

So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

TPE was taken based off illegally earned money he exchanged for TPE (i.e. WTs, equipment, etc).

Giving him back the illegal money would be like someone robbing a bank, purchasing a TV with the money they stole, getting caught by the police and being given back the money they shouldn't have had to begin with as a condition of returning the TV. 

In this situation he shouldn't have had the money and as a result shouldn't have also had the TPE that was associated with the purchases he used the money on. Both got forfeited as a result.

To use your bank robbery example: 

- If someone stole $1000 and brought a TV for $500, you have taken the TV AND the $1000, making them out of pocket $1500 instead of the $1000 the person stole originally. That doesn't add up and work. The robber wouldn't get the money back, the TV IS the money in this scenario. 



From the OG post "This means that the last $20.7M that Faded spent was done with money he shouldn’t have had", so you take away what this money was spent on. It's fair enough to remove the TPE but it doesn't make sense to leave him in a 20M hole when you've already taken away the 20M worth of TPE.

[nunccoepi]

So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

TPE was taken based off illegally earned money he exchanged for TPE (i.e. WTs, equipment, etc).

Giving him back the illegal money would be like someone robbing a bank, purchasing a TV with the money they stole, getting caught by the police and being given back the money they shouldn't have had to begin with as a condition of returning the TV. 

In this situation he shouldn't have had the money and as a result shouldn't have also had the TPE that was associated with the purchases he used the money on. Both got forfeited as a result.

To use your bank robbery example: 

- If someone stole $1000 and brought a TV for $500, you have taken the TV AND the $1000, making them out of pocket $1500 instead of the $1000 the person stole originally. That doesn't add up and work. The robber wouldn't get the money back, the TV IS the money in this scenario. 



From the OG post "This means that the last $20.7M that Faded spent was done with money he shouldn’t have had", so you take away what this money was spent on. It's fair enough to remove the TPE but it doesn't make sense to leave him in a 20M hole when you've already taken away the 20M worth of TPE.

I think you might have meant to say that the TV is the tpe in this scenario. 

So to continue with your example, once the robber was caught with the TV and the leftover $500, we would take away the TV and return the $500 to him. Now the robber has the original $1000 that he shouldn't have. So we will take away the entire $1000. So, in our case, with these extra steps added in for clarity, we took away the 60tpe that was bought illegally. Then we returned the $20M to faded that he used to buy the 60tpe illegally. That brings his total stash of illegal money to $130M. Since all of that $130M is illegally gained, we then take the entire $130M. (and then in real life, I presume the TV would also get returned to the rightful owner, but in our case there is no one to return the tpe to).