Stats & History S32 Rules & Tribunal Thread

[GremioPower]

It's a bullshit interpretation you have cobbled together to allow a punishment.

Mate, I have just described what happened. You may dislike as much as you want, it doesn’t make it less of a fact.

I haven’t said anything about my opinion on the ruling. You are making assumptions about me based on nothing.

Breath in, relax, and think for a while before posting. It helps reducing b*llsh*t.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Mate, I have just described what happened. You may dislike as much as you want, it doesn’t make it less of a fact.

I haven’t said anything about my opinion on the ruling. You are making assumptions about me based on nothing.

Breath in, relax, and think for a while before posting. It helps reducing b*llsh*t.

you is the committee you. again, everyone who voted for it should be embarrassed

 

[GremioPower]

you is the committee you.

What does make you say that?

You are clearly mistaking me for someone else. Again: breath in, relax, and think for a while…

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What does make you say that?

You are clearly mistaking me for someone else.

well if you're not on the committee you are obviously endorsing this position to defend it. thats your call, but its a 100% wrong interpretation - because its not an interpretation its a rewriting.

this is a very bad precedent, because it basically means the admin and committee will ignore their own rules now to contrive the outcomes they want

 

[Barrybran]

Mount Buller Demons rookie Pickitt has been charged with violation of Rule 4B after attempting to sign up to the SFA with an Alias Account.



The matter was discussed in committee and it was decided that:
1. The alias technically is not a listed player and the rule does not specifically state that attempted sign ups are violations.
2. He is just a rookie who was likely not aware of the rule.

Therefore, it has been decided that Pickett will not face suspension for his actions, however, he will be slapped with a suspended sentence which, if he is caught attempting to sign up with an alias again, he will be given an instant 8 week suspension from the SFA.

Rule 4B's section on alt accounts will also be tightened to what I will refer to as the "Pickitt Rule". From now on, listed posters may not use alt accounts and post in the sign up thread, even as a joke. This is to eliminate any "grey area" and confusion when such a thing occurs.

I'm still waiting for my pizza. It has been more than 30 minutes.

 

[GremioPower]

well if you're not on the committee you are obviously endorsing this position to defend it.

You made a question. I could provide you an answer because NaturalDisaster had posted the ruling and its reasoning. Those facts are simply public.

Again, all that I have said is this: in accordance with the decision, it’s not a case of “nulla pœna sine lege” because there’s a section stating that aliases are forbidden. Period.

You wouldn’t be able to find a word of mine defending the decision, mate. I may agree or disagree with it. You cannot possibly know which is the case.

I simply haven’t said anything about it. You are simply guessing based only on your prejudices and unsubstantiated assumptions.

You have been warned; yet, you keep embarrassing yourself. I don’t know what else I can do to help you. Please, stop.

 

[DemonJim]

The second part of the rule was broken: “No aliases allowed.” There was a discussion on its interpretation.

There were two possibilities — whether it was: [a] merely a reinforcement of the first part (“A player may only have one account as a listed player in the Sweet FA”); or a separate infringement.

It was decided in favour of the latter.

Hi there person I don't know. You are wrong.
The part you are highlighting is in regards to that first point, just before it.
Otherwise why has pants not been banned? Also whoever runs NOT TJASTA?
Please, keep digging yourselves in further, it's hilarious to watch.

A suspended ban for not breaking the rules is ridiculous. And it's clear a few of you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Cadsky]

Hi there person I don't know. You are wrong.
The part you are highlighting is in regards to that first point, just before it.
Otherwise why has pants not been banned? Also whoever runs NOT TJASTA?
Please, keep digging yourselves in further, it's hilarious to watch.

A suspended ban for not breaking the rules is ridiculous. And it's clear a few of you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's not forget that BoomerAndy guy. Whoever runs that account should be sacked as admin... No wait, that's too obvious. Should give themselves an 8 week ban.

 

[GremioPower]

You are wrong.

Hi. If I’m wrong, which I can be, please, tell me what was the justification for the decision.

You are stating that there are precedents on the contrary, which would go against the merits of the decision. I haven’t said a word on the merits of the decision. I have just made a briefing of it: “that’s what have been decided.”

If you disagree with the decision, which is your right, address your complaint to the Administration and/or the Committee.

If you disagree with my description, which is also your right, then, I repeat, please, tell me what I have missed on the justification for the decision.

You do not have a right, however, of mixing both discussions. They are different, and I’m only involved in one.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You made a question. I could provide you an answer because NaturalDisaster had posted the ruling and its reasoning. Those facts are simply public.

Again, all that I have said is this: in accordance with the decision, it’s not a case of “nulla pœna sine lege” because there’s a section stating that aliases are forbidden. Period.

You wouldn’t be able to find a word of mine defending the decision, mate. I may agree or disagree with it. You cannot possibly know which is the case.

I simply haven’t said anything about it. You are simply guessing based only on your prejudices and unsubstantiated assumptions.

You have been warned; yet, you keep embarrassing yourself. I don’t know what else I can do to help you. Please, stop.

"i have been warned"???

okay, warning ignored - unleash whatever threat you are making here

 

[GremioPower]

"i have been warned"???

okay, warning ignored - unleash whatever threat you are making here

I’m not making any threats. I have said more than once that you are making a public display of ignorance.

I’m sincerely trying to help you stop with that because I’m feeling embarrassed for you. If you are fine with it, then there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[pantskyle]

Mount Buller Demons rookie Pickitt has been charged with violation of Rule 4B after attempting to sign up to the SFA with an Alias Account.



The matter was discussed in committee and it was decided that:
1. The alias technically is not a listed player and the rule does not specifically state that attempted sign ups are violations.
2. He is just a rookie who was likely not aware of the rule.

Therefore, it has been decided that Pickett will not face suspension for his actions, however, he will be slapped with a suspended sentence which, if he is caught attempting to sign up with an alias again, he will be given an instant 8 week suspension from the SFA.

Rule 4B's section on alt accounts will also be tightened to what I will refer to as the "Pickitt Rule". From now on, listed posters may not use alt accounts and post in the sign up thread, even as a joke. This is to eliminate any "grey area" and confusion when such a thing occurs.

Demons appeal, he didn't break a rule therefore you can't charge him with one, most definitely can't find him guilty of the charge and even more most definitely can't put a suspended sentence on the accusation.

We know which loser teams pushed for a ban but no rule broken no charge no issue.

The fact the rule is going to be changed to justify this ludicrous outcome is completely laughable. Grow a spine ND.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I’m not making any threats. I have said more than once that you are making a public display of ignorance.

I’m sincerely trying to help you stop with that because I’m feeling embarrassed for you. If you are fine with it, then there is nothing I can do about it.

issue your warnings to someone who gives a s**t about them a-hole

 

[pantskyle]

The second part of the rule was broken: “No aliases allowed.” There was a discussion on its interpretation.

There were two possibilities — whether it was: [a] merely a reinforcement of the first part (“A player may only have one account as a listed player in the Sweet FA”); or a separate infringement.

It was decided in favour of the latter.

Absolutely you can have an alias, I have several in this league.

 

[Headless]

Ned_Flanders is bang on here. Pickitt is somehow getting a suspended sentence for breaking a rule that doesn't yet exist?

 

[GremioPower]

Absolutely you can have an alias, I have several in this league.

I know. I have suggested the Rats to abstain. It seemed an odd accusation. It still does.

Either Pickitt is being punished for a rule that SHOULD exist or aliases are not allowed. That’s the issue.

Ultimately, Pickitt wasn’t suspended. The whole point of the decision is to merely justify the accusation.

 

[Bluelegs]

It's a bullshit interpretation you have cobbled together to allow a punishment.

Under this interpretation the joke NOT TJASTA alt should see TJ get a suspended sentence. There is no qualifier, it says "no Alts allowed". But you know this is crap because the qualifier is the first sentence.

The rule worked because the club identified it and didn't recruit him. It wasn't listed. The intent is to stop lists being stacked with Alts, and guess what, no list was stacked with an alt.

This interpretation is a sign you guys are back on the vibe bandwagon again, and it's not a good thing. If the rule is a bad one, change it. Don't become some arbitrary body that does whatever the fu** it wants.

This should never have gotten this far, everyone who voted for it should be embarrassed

To be fair. Having the interpretations of the rules change on the fly really does make this feel like I'm a part of the AFL.

 

[pantskyle]

I know. I have suggested the Rats to abstain. It seemed an odd accusation. It still does.

Either Pickitt is being punished for a rule that SHOULD exist or aliases are not allowed. That’s the issue.

Ultimately, Pickitt wasn’t suspended. The whole point of the decision is to merely justify the accusation.

Which is the incorrect path to go down. What idiots are voting to agree to that decision? And then tweaking the rule after the fact to justify it?

The fact that ND allowed this to be the path chosen is incredibly poor.

 

[DemonJim]

We want names. Clearly, the teams that agreed to this suspended ban have no idea what they are on about.
Which makes you think, are they even suited to be in the committee?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

To be fair. Having the interpretations of the rules change on the fly really does make this feel like I'm a part of the AFL.

NaturalDisaster is bigfootys own Steven Hocking

 

[Pickitt]

Ned_Flanders is bang on here. Pickitt is somehow getting a suspended sentence for breaking a rule that doesn't yet exist?

I'm getting a suspended sentance?

 

[Pickitt]

We want names. Clearly, the teams that agreed to this suspended ban have no idea what they are on about.
Which makes you think, are they even suited to be in the committee?

Be my lawyer

 

[DemonJim]

Be my lawyer

I don't think I can be your dad and your lawyer.

Too much of a conflict of interest, son.

 

[Not TJASTA]

OwO

 

[Pickitt]

I don't think I can be your dad and your lawyer.

Too much of a conflict of interest, son.

What is ND gonna do to me dad....