Vogue Ban Discussion

[theo]

I'm not sure why people are referring to the rules of ladle as if they belong to sine like "your judicial system," (referring to sine) because sine isn't like the tyrannical dictator of ladle who controls and writes all the rules. Remember, this is a community.

When one can't argue well one attacks people.

ad hominem (**** the system) & ad personam (**** sine)

[Oparachukwu]

participate [pahr-tis-uh-peyt]:
to take or have a part or share, as with others; partake; share
Participating could imply to playing or even spectating. e.g. If I join a server and spectate, I am PARTICIPATING as a client of the server. And I don't understand the seriousness in this topic, I was once ts with liz once and she said used to make topics, such as this one, to rile up everyone. It's not meant to be taken seriously. If I was her, I would've known that the group of SDP players wouldn't be enough to propose an appeal. She's just provoking all of you, I can't believe you all are so dense to even give this topic attention. This community is supposed to be smarter than that...

[sinewav]

So I am allowing her to do so if she wants, I have no desire to break the rules, But I do have a problem with you threatening to ban me and my members when we aren't going to be doing anything wrong.

You do realize I'm just explaining the rules, right? I can't ban anyone. I am not even eligible to vote in a PM trial. All I am saying is that she is banned from the servers, which automatically means she cannot be there in spectator mode. If you conspire to allow her to spectate, then your team will be at the mercy of the mob. I don't see why you would even consider this an option.

There is no need to be pedantic about this because it is quite simple. Forget about arguing the definition of "playing" or "participating." A ban means exactly what you would expect it to mean: you can't go in the server.

I believe we planned to stream the ladle for liz so that she could watch, I think that's fair, that way she can watch and isn't in the the server, therefore she isn't breaking any rules.

That is perfectly OK! While you are at it, you should stream the game for everyone else. That would be a positive contribution.

[Gazelle]

I am all for helping the community and will see what we can do about the streaming..

If I wasn't about the community SDP would've never been created. I just for one being a veteran of the game realize that not even being able to watch a ladle would bother me, I understand what she did was wrong, but can't we let her spectate? I mean if another team is dumb enough to allow her to play without knowing if it's actually their member or not then isn't that their fault? I surely doubt she is looking to do what she did before, again.

Im not solely fighting for her trust me, what she did was wrong (I think even she realizes it, I could be wrong though) Im just defending the stance that maybe we went toooo far, I would hate not being able to even spectate a ladle every now and again, especially for 12 months.

[Lowkey]

Considering Liz has been one of the leaders in the field of trying to get streaming off the ground I don't why when she cant play she would want to give back. and considering you aren't even being reasonable about it. I don't see why you would expect such a thing.


you know when a sports player is banned from the sport he can still go watch the game.

[orion]

Luis Suarez couldnt assist to next Uruguay games after he got suspended on Word Cup.

[sinewav]

Luis Suarez couldnt assist to next Uruguay games after he got suspended on Word Cup.

Good point, I was about to bring this up. In some professional sports, banned players can't even enter the stadium.

[Vogue]

But he can still watch the game.

[sinewav]

But he can still watch the game.

Right. And so can you. Just not from your client connected to the server.

[takburger]

I don't think Suarez, from his TV can talk and coach his team mates on the ground.

[Gonzap]

Even if he could he is not allowed to.

Another example: when a coach is kicked off a game (red card) he cannot comunicate whatsoever with his team in any way. Not even with his personal phone.

[dinobro]

Just FYI:
You all talk of how "it's not us, it's community ruling!". It's not. You only take votes from team leaders and ignoring voice of all the players, spectators and other, as you called them, ladle enthusiasts. So yeah, letting team leaders who might have interest in getting rid of someone (banning a good player to increase their clan chances in next ladle perhaps?) do all the ruling.
So please, stop overusing "community". Community as a whole has no say in the matter. All the rules are enforced by biased people with their own interests. I'm not saying you're all vicious and biased, but can you vouch for everyone else? If you think you can, you're incredibly silly. It's nothing like a jury. Jury, people who decide of the guilt, should be unbiased towards the accused person and have no personal interest in conducting a punishment. As Lowkey said, you DON'T EVEN HAVE an appeal process...

tl;dr Fix your process, it's shit and stop calling it "community's ruling" when it's conducted by people that are obviously biased and having interest in getting rid of a player from an opposite team.

Cheerio!

EDIT: Your previous system made much more sense as it eliminated human factor in ruling. It was automatic, so ensured every player is treated in a same way, so in the end - fairly.
From most of the posts here I can see this "we vs them" bullshit, basically people who like Liz think the punishment is ridiculously high and people who, because of having some personal vendetta against Liz as a person say 12 months is adequate. Regardless where you stand on this discussion, logical step would be to think a bit deeper about the current system because it's extremely flawed in both cases.

[kyle]

Team leaders are supposed to ask their players for their opinions.

If you think there should be an appeal process start a topic with guidelines and then have a team leader vote on it.

Nothing is stopping anyone from doing something.

[dinobro]

Sure, they are supposed to. What's your guaranty they are doing so?
What's your guaranty they won't vote for maximum punishment because it's in their interest to make rival clan weaker?

You're ignoring the fact that entire process is flawed from the beginning to the end.
Like, hell, sum of months people voted for is 98, divide that by 11 votes it gives 8,9 months. So, the most logical way would be to ban a person for 9 months, not 12. It doesn't make sense, and of course, most people will argue it does simply because person who was vote conducted against rub a lot of people wrong on a personal level.
The fact is, and you just have to agree, that if some more liked person in the community would do the same, the vote result would be different and THAT'S A CLEAR SIGN OF A FLAWED SYSTEM.

Add:
Also, why "team leaders"? Why do you think that team leaders should be the only people with a valid opinion on the matter? Why not all registered ladle players? Why not players that played in last two/three ladles? They shouldn't have saying in something that will affect them all? Weird.

[Vogue]

Team leaders are supposed to ask their players for their opinions.

If you think there should be an appeal process start a topic with guidelines and then have a team leader vote on it.

Nothing is stopping anyone from doing something.

Just one? lol

Thanks for being helpful Kyle. I'm looking into something like this but it's all really vague.