When to follow the rules?

[Drahque]

I would also VERY much like a clearer rule on when it's okay to change a mode. Because I was 100 % convinced, that in order to do something against the rules, you have to MAKE SURE that everyone says YES or OKAY to it. At least that's how we did the 2 out of 300 games that I played hybrid, and in one game, where we decided to continue a game 2v3, we did make sure everyone agreed, so that nobody could report this game.

So my question is, do we need to make sure that EVERYONE agrees in order to do something else than the rules states?


It seems to be different from case to case, since in these 2 cases Supersexxy punishes on circumstantial reasoning's, almost as if he's psychic and can read peoples mind?
- viewtopic.php?f=72&t=13375 (No evidence that 100 % agreed)
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=9390 (Only based on: "I think you PP'd")

And in this case, Arishok and Marlboro_ are being punished, because they did NOT check if everyone was okay with doing something that's not according to the rules:
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=11303 (Since people didn't agree, got punished for it)

So, how can it be so different from case to case? Don't we need a more general rule? Otherwise this can be abused.

[Drahque]

* Another example *
Supersexxy's reasoning's for us being unvouched, is that we act against the spirit of the game:

You're being unvouched for acting against the spirit of the game.

While in this case, HealByColor didn't get punished for doing something ethically wrong / against the spirit of the League:
- viewtopic.php?f=83&t=11449

So there seem to be no rule, which means that Moderators can decide if they want to punish someone and those be abused.

[dweiler]

In the case of Arishok and Marlboro_, they did something that is not allowed, even if all players agreed.

[Drahque]

In the case of Arishok and Marlboro_, they did something that is not allowed, even if all players agreed.

Oh okay, it's only cause one game we did swap 2 players, cause someone didn't wanna be on same team. But we did make sure that everyone agreed, which is why I got the impression that if everyone is agrees it's allright.

[eldryan]

you realize mods can see lobby chat? they see all the evidence...and it's pretty clear and substantial that when every1 indicates previous agreement, it's equivalent of actually every1 agreeing is evident. the PP offense was because of the 2nd d/c in suspicious circumstances in as many days, and had been agreed upon as a punishment previous to the -ELO being as widespread.

[Drahque]

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I'd understand why we need to determine on case to case-basis, since no scenario is the same. The only thing I sometimes wonder about, is when it seems like someone can "read the mind" of a player, and say that he left on purpose - even though there is no evidence that proofs its 100 % correct. But then again, we can never know anything for sure then.

Anyways, just lock this topic and achieve it, thanks. (:

[DonaldtheDuckie]

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I'd understand why we need to determine on case to case-basis, since no scenario is the same. The only thing I sometimes wonder about, is when it seems like someone can "read the mind" of a player, and say that he left on purpose - even though there is no evidence that proofs its 100 % correct. But then again, we can never know anything for sure then.

Anyways, just lock this topic and achieve it, thanks. (:

Yep this is why it is so hard to prove intention to teamkill or pull the plug, Or that people maphack. Anyhow, thread locked as you wish.