PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57

[PokeMaster]

If we've learned anything, it's that we cannot simply take these players' words as true and honest.

No, you can. All they "lied" about was their attendance. They just told everybody they couldn't make the ladle, and a couple of them were only left on their original teams' rosters due to some mistakes and poor planning. It's analogous to "lying" to people to throw a surprise party. Everybody's just overreacting because they didn't like the surprise.

So yes, you can trust what they say now as much as you'd trust them before this whole incident occurred. Insinuating that they're completely untrustworthy at this point is an unneeded exaggeration.

[Concord]

is it?

[-*inS*-]

My view: that's not the place to make such a joke, and if insa had not changed the team back, they would have been disqualified from the ladle. Not cool.

We still need proof of who the captain actually was. There's no way to connect We@aagid to the We who edited the wiki to the forum account on here.

insa is supposedly all three, but then again insa was supposedly not playing this Ladle. If we've learned anything, it's that we cannot simply take these players' words as true and honest.

The onus is on you to prove that one or more of these accounts wasn't/isn't me, not the other way around. I'd suggest looking at ip's if you're truly interested*

*probably false

[Concord]

I'm just saying we can't punish them unless we can prove it was them.

[PokeMaster]

@Conc You're saying we can't punish insa, fofo, vov, ppotter, slash, wap and eckz because we don't know for sure that it was them?

huh?

[Concord]

yeah

[Venijn]

@Conc You're saying we can't punish insa, fofo, vov, ppotter, slash, wap and eckz because we don't know for sure that it was them?

huh?

Well, it's a legit statement. How can we punish people without being able to prove anything? I've found myself leaning toward the "this has dragged out too far" crowd, many people seem to have moved on already.

I no longer find merit in banning some of our best players, and would support Psy's suggestion that's it's dealt with internally, through the line of authority (player -> clan.)

To do otherwise would set a precedent, and it's probably more prudent to look at why they could do such a thing whilst only breaking any rules by accident, it could be (weakly) argued that by bringing this to the community's attention, we have been helped, and should prevent it from being able to happen again.

The best way forward is as a community, let's not sideline anyone.

[PokeMaster]

I don't even get what the big deal is. Their lies, in my eyes, were pretty harmless (to the community, NOT to their clans/teams).

[Concord]

I'm not saying move on, I'm saying get the facts. We need a list of IP addresses from every Ladle match they played and from their forum accounts and from their wiki user accounts.

Anyway, according the dlh, edits done by We on the wiki were made with multiple proxy IP addresses. This should be made illegal. If we cannot confirm who edits the wiki, there's no way to assign responsibility for violations related to the various wiki-related rules. It is entirely practical to check wiki user IPs just for teams that are signed up with aliases before each Ladle, and barring them from play should the IP be a proxy. We'll know it when we see it.

[Venijn]

I'm not saying move on, I'm saying get the facts. We need a list of IP addresses from every Ladle match they played and from their forum accounts and from their wiki user accounts.

Anyway, according the dlh, edits done by We on the wiki were made with multiple proxy IP addresses. This should be made illegal. If we cannot confirm who edits the wiki, there's no way to assign responsibility for violations related to the various wiki-related rules. It is entirely practical to check wiki user IPs just for teams that are signed up with aliases before each Ladle, and barring them from play should the IP be a proxy. We'll know it when we see it.

My apologies if my post came across as suggestive towards your intentions, I didn't meant to imply you were suggesting to move on, it's mine.

This seems to be getting silly though. Who's going to do this work Who's going to be on the committee? Usually it's only pro players who get elected, not the best thinkers. (I'm not suggesting I am one,) but some of the better thinkers in the game aren't the best players.

It's just getting very tiring now, as Poke said, the clans were affected more than the community as a whole. Don't get me wrong, i know we've all been let down, but SP lost both their teams to aliased SP players (plus extras,) so they should have the final say in whether they are punished (just an example.)

[PokeMaster]

That's not quite what I'm saying ven. I mean that there was really no harm done to the community at all. There's a difference between a community punishing a players and a clan/team punishing their own. A clan/team can't ban people from playing in the ladle, just kick them out of their own team. It sounds like you want SP to decide a community-scale punishment for clan-scale offenses, which would be far from right.

[Phytotron]

The onus is on you to prove that [something] wasn't/isn't [so], not the other way around.

Er, no, that's called proving a negative. The burden of proof always lies with the one asserting the positive claim.

[-*inS*-]

The onus is on you to prove that [something] wasn't/isn't [so], not the other way around.

Er, no, that's called proving a negative. The burden of proof always lies with the one asserting the positive claim.

Indeed it is, I misphrased it; rather he would need to prove that multiple people were in charge of my account (the negative equivalent of the negative I said). But I misunderstood his point anyways so that's not his intention to do so.

[Ritsuka]

People are still talking about this?

[Mkay1]

No need for comments like that. People obviously are