+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Suspensions/Punishments (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=226)
+---- Thread: Mryourface2468 Suspended (/showthread.php?tid=50921)
- ThongBonerstorm - 06-02-2015
He should be fired
Out of a Cannon
Into the sun.
- .bojo - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jun 2 2015, 08:09 AM
Vancouver cheating because "they keep losing to Kelowna" doesn't fly when you consider their recent history compared to other teams in the league.
It doesn't matter if they're being successful or not. Cheating is still cheating, and it will be punished equally.
We need to make sure the punishment is consistent with what has been done before. If we want to modify the punishment for more or less, it would be in effect after this situation.
- Nike - 06-02-2015
Well, isn't this just about the dumbest thing you can do as a GM...
- ArGarBarGar - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Bojo@Jun 2 2015, 08:13 AM
It doesn't matter if they're being successful or not. Cheating is still cheating, and it will be punished equally.
We need to make sure the punishment is consistent with what has been done before. If we want to modify the punishment for more or less, it would be in effect after this situation.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be punished equally. I just find some of the justification to be ridiculous.
- Joker5123 - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Caillean@Jun 2 2015, 08:55 AMFair question, I would hope that I would be capable of being understanding if the situation would be reversed.
See, I have to ask though. If the Knights had done it to ensure their three-peat, would you be as understanding as to their reasons as you are to mryourface's? Because I feel like if the situation were the other way around, a lot of the same people who are defending this would be calling for someone else's head.
Cheating is cheating though, no excuse in either scenario.
- Caillean - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Bojo+Jun 2 2015, 05:13 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bojo @ Jun 2 2015, 05:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It doesn't matter if they're being successful or not. Cheating is still cheating, and it will be punished equally.
We need to make sure the punishment is consistent with what has been done before. If we want to modify the punishment for more or less, it would be in effect after this situation.[/b]
Well I don't think he was saying it shouldn't be punished equally, just that it might be easier to understand or empathize I guess with one of those teams doing it to have a chance at actually winning.
The fact that the reason it was done is because a person on a team with a decent winning record recently wanted to prevent another team the guy didn't like from having a 3-peat is just ridiculous. And if ever there were to be a punishment change that would be retroactive, it should be this one imo. This was as blatant a cheating attempt as it really gets, and all he gets is 25 games on his main player.
So much for me going back to lurking, smh
Edit-
<!--QuoteBegin-ArGarBarGar@Jun 2 2015, 05:17 AM
I'm not saying it shouldn't be punished equally. I just find some of the justification to be ridiculous.[/quote]
Yup, there we go
- bbp - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Nike@Jun 2 2015, 09:14 AM
Well, isn't this just about the dumbest thing you can do as a GM...
I think Nike said this to deflect blame.
We should investigate Nike.
- Caillean - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Joker5123@Jun 2 2015, 05:17 AMFair enough, I just personally disagree I guess (with the first bit). Like, I understand why Mryourface did it, but it was still a dirty thing for him to do and I absolutely would not support him afterwards. I guess at least to me it just came across as you kind of... condoning it? By saying you and the other members of the team were behind him because you understood why he did it.
Fair question, I would hope that I would be capable of being understanding if the situation would be reversed.
Cheating is cheating though, no excuse in either scenario.
- Nike - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by bbp@Jun 2 2015, 08:20 AM
I think Nike said this to deflect blame.
We should investigate Nike.
Please do. I feel dirty and need to be cleansed. :ph34r:
- Caillean - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by bbp@Jun 2 2015, 05:20 AMHe didn't say it. He asked it. Which means he's looking to see what the dumbest thing a GM can do is.
I think Nike said this to deflect blame.
We should investigate Nike.
I AGREE, INVESTIGATE THESE SHENANIGANS.
- Schultzy - 06-02-2015
So....how about that new skin? Pretty great, huh?
- Mook - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Caillean@Jun 2 2015, 08:04 AM
[b]I'm gonna go back to lurking after this, but I do wanna say that I just read his presser and that ain't a mistake. .[/b]
Da fibs r real
- GroupMeIsKindOfOkay - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Schultzy@Jun 2 2015, 08:24 AM=D>
So....how about that new skin? Pretty great, huh?
i might change from ShadowsNoNav for first time ever :o
- easymoneysniper - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Schultzy@Jun 2 2015, 08:24 AM
So....how about that new skin? Pretty great, huh?
I don't see no difference
- .bojo - 06-02-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Caillean@Jun 2 2015, 08:19 AM
Well I don't think he was saying it shouldn't be punished equally, just that it might be easier to understand or empathize I guess with one of those teams doing it to have a chance at actually winning.
The fact that the reason it was done is because a person on a team with a decent winning record recently wanted to prevent another team the guy didn't like from having a 3-peat is just ridiculous. And if ever there were to be a punishment change that would be retroactive, it should be this one imo. This was as blatant a cheating attempt as it really gets, and all he gets is 25 games on his main player.
So much for me going back to lurking, smh
Edit-
Yup, there we go
I believe the penalty should be harder, too, but that's something we'll have to decide later. For now I think it's for the best that he stepped down, and took the penalty in stride. I think there's no point in punishing the team itself if he's no longer a part of the franchise, and that this is one of those penalties that need to focus more on the individual himself than the group he represented.