Login

Grapehead · 06-27-2019, 09:52 PM

Okay, but @Confusion is still cool

JumpierPegasus · 06-28-2019, 02:02 AM

06-27-2019, 05:24 PMkit Wrote:
06-27-2019, 03:16 PMJumpierPancakes Wrote: HO won't allow me in anymore due to serious conspiracy efforts to keep the social elite at the top pulling the strings

We know who’s running the show

...

Gorlab?

ontanis · 06-28-2019, 02:32 AM

06-28-2019, 02:02 AMJumpierPancakes Wrote:
06-27-2019, 05:24 PMkit Wrote: We know who’s running the show

...

Gorlab?

Asspancakes?? formx??

*Katth* · 06-28-2019, 02:38 AM

06-27-2019, 01:10 PMFordyford Wrote:
06-27-2019, 12:46 PMEggy216 Wrote: It’s weird because they’re two unique situations that fall under the same umbrella of “regression”. That’s also why the suspensions started on different days even though they were announced together - we had the one figured out, but were struggling to sort out the second.

So is the docking of TPE for getting regression incorrect, but you don't get TPE docked for just not doing regression at all? that seems... weird...

This also doesn't make sense to me really. Besides a 4 game suspension the TPE docking affects all future games of this player. Even if it's "only" 14 TPE.

S50 Challenge Cup Finals Game 7
[Image: gNFVjT6.png]

Baelor Swift · 06-28-2019, 06:04 AM

Wait wait wait... I originally read this differently... So to put this into clearer terms...

ThatDamnMcJesus: Thought he did regression correctly but never submitted it
Confusion: Thought he did regression correctly but couldn't complete it correctly.

Both members did the same thing wrong: they did not complete their regression by the deadline.

Why does it now matter how the offense came about? In so many past punishments, the reason for the breaking of a rule, especially related to in-sim offenses, never mattered. It would be great to hear from HO why such different punishments were decided for what seem to be the exact same offense.

caltroit_red_flames · 06-28-2019, 07:56 AM

06-28-2019, 06:04 AMBaelor Swift Wrote: Wait wait wait... I originally read this differently... So to put this into clearer terms...

ThatDamnMcJesus: Thought he did regression correctly but never submitted it
Confusion: Thought he did regression correctly but couldn't complete it correctly.

Both members did the same thing wrong: they did not complete their regression by the deadline.

Why does it now matter how the offense came about? In so many past punishments, the reason for the breaking of a rule, especially related to in-sim offenses, never mattered. It would be great to hear from HO why such different punishments were decided for what seem to be the exact same offense.

2 people killed someone accidently and get charged with manslaughter.

Person 1
How they killed the person: Drunk driving accident
Why it happened: Self medication through alcohol for depression

Person 2
How they killed the person: Shoves friend during a tussle, friend trips backward and hits head on cement ground
Why it happened: Friends got physical during a disagreement

The same crime technically, nobody really cares about why it happened right now (though maybe that says more about how America treats mental health issues that anything), but we probably all look at the drunk driver and think he's a piece of shit who killed someone through their stupidity while the 2nd case is the victim unfortunate circumstances.

ztevans · 06-28-2019, 08:29 AM

*sigh* ... Alright, let's break this down a bit. I really didn't want to do this and throw either user (or other people, such as updaters) under the bus, but since everyone seems to be very concerned about what I thought were two very minor punishments, here we go.

Some factors to consider...
- As noted by others in the thread, this is not Confusion's first time having issues with regression. He also managed to check off literally every single checkbox for regression circumvention (double claiming trainings, claiming S47 tasks that after regression was posted and not factoring them into his regression totals, etc.). We have no reason to believe this was intentional, but it's the definition of circumvention. He also failed at his attempt to correct the issue when it was first presented.
- Hallsy brought his situation to HO (before I was in it) and worked to reach an amicable conclusion to the issue. Also, people saying he simply "didn't do it" are not quite telling the truth. He posted a regression. It was not a valid one, but it also didn't include any of the earmarks noted above of "circumvention." A case could be made that's something that needs to be cleaned up in the rulebook, but since people are very hung up on them being "guilty of the same thing" ... according to the document we use as it is currently written, they're not. One of those deals where either we get killed for making up the rules as we go or we get killed for using a shitty rule. Knew this going in.
- The larger issue at hand, honestly, is that either player made it into the sim without proper regression. We are already working on stopgaps to prevent that in the future, but it shouldn't have happened.
- If it's any consolation (I'm aware, it's not) the TPE totals used in Confusion's punishment were literally the most conservative estimate we could come up with because, even after a conversation with his updater, we could not discern with any certainty how much he was actually over. Also, as Eggy noted, we could have opted to suspend Shirobokov for the duration of the time he was "over" as we did with Dover, which would have nearly ended his season. Instead, we took into consideration his repeated if unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue, which were not handled in a timely manner which is no fault of his own.
- As always, both teams have the option to appeal, etc., and as noted in the OP Chicago will be appealing the TPE penalty to Confusion, which will be handled by the appeals committee (not me don't yell at me).

And to directly answer @Baelor Swift, since I think he brings up a good point I want to touch on and not because I'm trying to shit on him Laughing

, I (NOTE: I as in ztevans, not speaking on behalf of all of HO here) honestly hope we can actually move in a direction where we aren't going "full medieval" and ignoring the reasons behind rules being broken when we hand out these punishment, because for both of these players the punishments would have been much more severe had we done so. Hallsy would have lost an ungodly amount of TPE if you deemed it circumvention (for whatever it's worth to a retiring player), and as noted above Confusion's season would basically be over.

*Katth* · 06-28-2019, 08:50 AM

06-28-2019, 08:29 AMztevans Wrote: *sigh* ... Alright, let's break this down a bit. I really didn't want to do this and throw either user (or other people, such as updaters) under the bus, but since everyone seems to be very concerned about what I thought were two very minor punishments, here we go.

Some factors to consider...
- As noted by others in the thread, this is not Confusion's first time having issues with regression. He also managed to check off literally every single checkbox for regression circumvention (double claiming trainings, claiming S47 tasks that after regression was posted and not factoring them into his regression totals, etc.). We have no reason to believe this was intentional, but it's the definition of circumvention. He also failed at his attempt to correct the issue when it was first presented.
- Hallsy brought his situation to HO (before I was in it) and worked to reach an amicable conclusion to the issue. Also, people saying he simply "didn't do it" are not quite telling the truth. He posted a regression. It was not a valid one, but it also didn't include any of the earmarks noted above of "circumvention." A case could be made that's something that needs to be cleaned up in the rulebook, but since people are very hung up on them being "guilty of the same thing" ... according to the document we use as it is currently written, they're not. One of those deals where either we get killed for making up the rules as we go or we get killed for using a shitty rule. Knew this going in.
- The larger issue at hand, honestly, is that either player made it into the sim without proper regression. We are already working on stopgaps to prevent that in the future, but it shouldn't have happened.
- If it's any consolation (I'm aware, it's not) the TPE totals used in Confusion's punishment were literally the most conservative estimate we could come up with because, even after a conversation with his updater, we could not discern with any certainty how much he was actually over. Also, as Eggy noted, we could have opted to suspend Shirobokov for the duration of the time he was "over" as we did with Dover, which would have nearly ended his season. Instead, we took into consideration his repeated if unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue, which were not handled in a timely manner which is no fault of his own.
- As always, both teams have the option to appeal, etc., and as noted in the OP Chicago will be appealing the TPE penalty to Confusion, which will be handled by the appeals committee (not me don't yell at me).

And to directly answer @Baelor Swift, since I think he brings up a good point I want to touch on and not because I'm trying to shit on him , I (NOTE: I as in ztevans, not speaking on behalf of all of HO here) honestly hope we can actually move in a direction where we aren't going "full medieval" and ignoring the reasons behind rules being broken when we hand out these punishment, because for both of these players the punishments would have been much more severe had we done so. Hallsy would have lost an ungodly amount of TPE if you deemed it circumvention (for whatever it's worth to a retiring player), and as noted above Confusion's season would basically be over.

Thank you, it makes so much more sense to me now.

S50 Challenge Cup Finals Game 7
[Image: gNFVjT6.png]

ztevans · 06-28-2019, 09:00 AM

06-28-2019, 08:50 AMKatth Wrote:
06-28-2019, 08:29 AMztevans Wrote: *sigh* ... Alright, let's break this down a bit. I really didn't want to do this and throw either user (or other people, such as updaters) under the bus, but since everyone seems to be very concerned about what I thought were two very minor punishments, here we go.

Some factors to consider...
- As noted by others in the thread, this is not Confusion's first time having issues with regression. He also managed to check off literally every single checkbox for regression circumvention (double claiming trainings, claiming S47 tasks that after regression was posted and not factoring them into his regression totals, etc.). We have no reason to believe this was intentional, but it's the definition of circumvention. He also failed at his attempt to correct the issue when it was first presented.
- Hallsy brought his situation to HO (before I was in it) and worked to reach an amicable conclusion to the issue. Also, people saying he simply "didn't do it" are not quite telling the truth. He posted a regression. It was not a valid one, but it also didn't include any of the earmarks noted above of "circumvention." A case could be made that's something that needs to be cleaned up in the rulebook, but since people are very hung up on them being "guilty of the same thing" ... according to the document we use as it is currently written, they're not. One of those deals where either we get killed for making up the rules as we go or we get killed for using a shitty rule. Knew this going in.
- The larger issue at hand, honestly, is that either player made it into the sim without proper regression. We are already working on stopgaps to prevent that in the future, but it shouldn't have happened.
- If it's any consolation (I'm aware, it's not) the TPE totals used in Confusion's punishment were literally the most conservative estimate we could come up with because, even after a conversation with his updater, we could not discern with any certainty how much he was actually over. Also, as Eggy noted, we could have opted to suspend Shirobokov for the duration of the time he was "over" as we did with Dover, which would have nearly ended his season. Instead, we took into consideration his repeated if unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue, which were not handled in a timely manner which is no fault of his own.
- As always, both teams have the option to appeal, etc., and as noted in the OP Chicago will be appealing the TPE penalty to Confusion, which will be handled by the appeals committee (not me don't yell at me).

And to directly answer @Baelor Swift, since I think he brings up a good point I want to touch on and not because I'm trying to shit on him , I (NOTE: I as in ztevans, not speaking on behalf of all of HO here) honestly hope we can actually move in a direction where we aren't going "full medieval" and ignoring the reasons behind rules being broken when we hand out these punishment, because for both of these players the punishments would have been much more severe had we done so. Hallsy would have lost an ungodly amount of TPE if you deemed it circumvention (for whatever it's worth to a retiring player), and as noted above Confusion's season would basically be over.

Thank you, it makes so much more sense to me now.

It's a looooooot of moving pieces. Please believe me when I say it was zero fun to even try to decipher it on our end and somehow turn it into a disciplinary action.

I don't expect everyone to agree with the final decision, ofc, but hopefully some context will help.

~~PenKnight~~ · 06-28-2019, 09:16 AM

I can't wait till the next Issue!

This HO stuff is fun... makes me think of SNL in the 90s... NEXT ISSUE!!

*Katth* · 06-28-2019, 09:28 AM

06-28-2019, 09:00 AMztevans Wrote:
06-28-2019, 08:50 AMKatth Wrote: Thank you, it makes so much more sense to me now.

It's a looooooot of moving pieces. Please believe me when I say it was zero fun to even try to decipher it on our end and somehow turn it into a disciplinary action.

I don't expect everyone to agree with the final decision, ofc, but hopefully some context will help.

Obviously many people have their opinion ready, but by just posting the punnishment and little context there's too much room for interpretation and this is the result. I think being transparent in what weighs in in the decision of the punnishment is a very good thing actually. I still consider myself a newbie on this site and it helps me understand better what's going on.

S50 Challenge Cup Finals Game 7
[Image: gNFVjT6.png]

ztevans · 06-28-2019, 09:32 AM

06-28-2019, 09:16 AMPenKnight Wrote: I can't wait till the next Issue!

This HO stuff is fun... makes me think of SNL in the 90s... NEXT ISSUE!!

I think the new issue will be very soon and MUCH more popular. Granted, anything is more popular than giving people paddlings, but no, for real, I think y'all will like it.

Slowpoke · 06-28-2019, 09:45 AM

06-28-2019, 09:32 AMztevans Wrote:
06-28-2019, 09:16 AMPenKnight Wrote: I can't wait till the next Issue!

This HO stuff is fun... makes me think of SNL in the 90s... NEXT ISSUE!!

I think the new issue will be very soon and MUCH more popular. Granted, anything is more popular than giving people paddlings, but no, for real, I think y'all will like it.

If you are involved, I like it to the max.

Avakael · 06-28-2019, 09:53 AM

Should also be noted that if you're having genuine trouble with your regression, ask for help. I managed to screw it up two weeks in a row this time around because I've been busy as hell and couldn't invest any time thinking about it. The help was helpful and it got sorted before the season was supposed to begin.

~~PenKnight~~ · 06-28-2019, 10:08 AM

WRONG...

It was over weeks ago you just haven't been Notified!!

NEXT ISSUE!

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us