04-23-2023, 11:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2023, 11:49 AM by Attopax. Edited 1 time in total.)
theCC has appealed their leaking punishment found here: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthre...?tid=45098
The basis of the appeal is that HO admits that there is no rule in the rulebook to violate. Further, on the basis of equity, the fine is fundamentally unfair because of his net payment for work performed.
1) Punishing someone for a violation not found in the rules is something that is closely reviewed because such activity would constitute Head Office overreach. One of the fundamental pillars of fairness and justice is that individuals know the rules prior to the enforcement. In this case, as correctly set forth by Head Office in their punishment, there is no specific rule for leaking awards information which is what happened here. However, we do have clear rules and precedent on leaks unrelated to the draft. In short, leaking is not a new concept in the ISFL. Everyone in ISFL management positions have heard the importance placed on the “user experience” and letting everyone have their exciting moment on stream. Thus, everyone knows the importance of insiders keeping information secure. Therefore, we believe that, although there was no express rule for “awards,” all users know or should know that any and all leaking impacts the user experience and is against the rules. Therefore, we do not believe that a punishment in this case is fundamentally unfair and certainly within the spirit of the rulebook as written.
2) As for the fine amount, theCC has claimed that the fine essentially nullified several hours of preparation and work and equity demands that the fine be lowered. As HO set forth, $2M is a consistent fine amount for unintentional leaking according to precedent. Appeals Team reviewed previous cases and did not find a related instance where the fine was tied to the job amount. The Team could not find any instances where any unintentional leaking fine was ever tied to a percentage reduction of any salaries or other income -- at least that are comparable. Although the Appeals Team finds it unfortunate that his compensation for the job and the fine amount have slim margins, the fine amount is consistent with precedent and HO’s philosophy of deterring leaking – both intentional and accidental.
Decision affirmed.
Appeals Team vote: 5 in favor, 2 unavailable; quorum met.
The basis of the appeal is that HO admits that there is no rule in the rulebook to violate. Further, on the basis of equity, the fine is fundamentally unfair because of his net payment for work performed.
1) Punishing someone for a violation not found in the rules is something that is closely reviewed because such activity would constitute Head Office overreach. One of the fundamental pillars of fairness and justice is that individuals know the rules prior to the enforcement. In this case, as correctly set forth by Head Office in their punishment, there is no specific rule for leaking awards information which is what happened here. However, we do have clear rules and precedent on leaks unrelated to the draft. In short, leaking is not a new concept in the ISFL. Everyone in ISFL management positions have heard the importance placed on the “user experience” and letting everyone have their exciting moment on stream. Thus, everyone knows the importance of insiders keeping information secure. Therefore, we believe that, although there was no express rule for “awards,” all users know or should know that any and all leaking impacts the user experience and is against the rules. Therefore, we do not believe that a punishment in this case is fundamentally unfair and certainly within the spirit of the rulebook as written.
2) As for the fine amount, theCC has claimed that the fine essentially nullified several hours of preparation and work and equity demands that the fine be lowered. As HO set forth, $2M is a consistent fine amount for unintentional leaking according to precedent. Appeals Team reviewed previous cases and did not find a related instance where the fine was tied to the job amount. The Team could not find any instances where any unintentional leaking fine was ever tied to a percentage reduction of any salaries or other income -- at least that are comparable. Although the Appeals Team finds it unfortunate that his compensation for the job and the fine amount have slim margins, the fine amount is consistent with precedent and HO’s philosophy of deterring leaking – both intentional and accidental.
Decision affirmed.
Appeals Team vote: 5 in favor, 2 unavailable; quorum met.
![[Image: SoEvil.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/SoEvil.gif)
![[Image: Dewalt.jpg]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/758471909196562442/983925019195355186/Dewalt.jpg)
![[Image: Untitled-1.png?width=720&height=432]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/758471909196562442/813495891834437662/Untitled-1.png?width=720&height=432)
