Another detail that is being overlooked is that Pens wasn't even an updater, he was PPT, therefore isn't even his job to fix player pages.
(02-27-2018, 04:47 PM)TheMemeMaestro Wrote:Another detail that is being overlooked is that Pens wasn't even an updater, he was PPT, therefore isn't even his job to fix player pages.Presumably, this is why it's not considered valid reasoning. If he was the assigned updater for those players, I expect there would be much less questioning of his actions. I impersonate a programmer for a living
Father of the League Wiki • Friendly Neighbourhood Angry Black Guy™ • NOT British
Originator of the Sim League Cinematic Universe (SLCU)
Super capitalists are parasites. Fite me.
Alternatively, if you agree, you can support a grassroots movement dedicated to educating and organising the working class by buying a digital newspaper subscription. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
(02-26-2018, 12:50 PM)Squamish Wrote:I'm just saying that "what is valid is defined by the league" is only fine if it's actually defined. Precedent is all well and good, but if it's not in the rulebook, no one is going to know it's a thing, so it's unreasonable to hold someone to a standard they don't know is the standard. In an instance where precedent is violated but a rule isn't outright broken, what I would do (independently of what the league would do, or has done) is explain to the person why what they've done violates precedent, put it in the rulebook for future times, and let that one go since it's not in the rulebook (or is, but isn't clear). This is the case (again, just in my opinion) regardless of the nature of the infraction - and yes, it can lead to people getting away with some big things, if it's not clear. Whether or not it's valid reasoning should absolutely be decided on a case by case basis. That means you can take context into account. "Any user who abuses moderation powers in order to alter (without permission or valid reasoning) another users post, topic, or reply will be given the follow punishments:" There are 3 steps to the rule Step 1 - "Did he abuse his moderation powers to alter another user's post?" - Yes he did. Step 2 - "Did he have permission?" - No Step 3 - "Did he have valid reasoning?" - That is up to HO to decide whether the reasons he gave were valid for breaking the rule, and they were not. @Supersquare04 said he used his powers to change player's draft years - which were listed incorrectly. That is valid because that would have made those players incorrectly regress early, etc. Changing bits and pieces of player titles because you don't like the way they look is not valid reasoning.
Wow I remember when I used to think 2M fine was a really big deal
|
|