07-26-2022, 09:29 AMgrok Wrote: The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to consensus:

I.

On Saturday, July 23rd, Head Office was notified about a late regression. Sopath submitted their regression for player Bas O’Bigbers on Monday, July 18. This regression was added to the player page on the day of the first regular season sim, 11 days after regressions were due. Edmonton GMs attempted to contact the sim team to push through the update on the day of the first sim, and contacted Head Office about the issue. Edmonton was penalized the team’s next available third-round draft pick and one season of GM pay. Bas O’Bigbers was suspended for the quantity of games the player played with an illegal build (17).


II.

Edmonton’s appeal hinges on their good faith efforts to get Bas O’Bigbers’s build corrected prior to the first regular season sim. GM HabsFanFromOntario contacted both simmers two hours ahead of the sim on July 18th to process the regression. While we believe Edmonton acted in good faith to fix the problem as soon as they became aware, we do not find this to be a mitigating factor for a few reasons.

First, the Appeals Committee believes it’s the responsibility of a GM to complete their GM tasks in a timely and comprehensive manner, even if they take best efforts to fix any mistakes.

Second, we find the penalty issued by Head Office already takes these mitigating factors into account. Failing to complete GM tasks by more than five days can be punished up to dismissal of the current managers. Head Office chose to follow the preceding penalty in the S57 Edmonton punishment for failing to regress Eddy Ask Jr. We find the forfeiture of one draft pick and one season’s GM pay a suitably reduced fine that reflects Edmonton’s attempts to resolve the issue.

Third, although Edmonton attempted to find a resolution before the first sim, it still creates a risk of an invalid player in the sim. The Updaters play a crucial role in validating regressions and using standardized methods to correct invalid regressions before the start of the regular season. The deadlines exist to allow for time to review and revise, and although Edmonton attempted to fix the issue they created new and divergent risks to competitive integrity in the process.

For these reasons, the Appeals Committee has chosen to uphold the GM pay fine and the 3rd round pick penalty


III.

While we find Edmonton at fault and find the team and GM punishment fair, there were multiple considerations for the duration of Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension. Sopath violated the regression rules by failing to regress Bas O’Bigbers by the deadline, but submitted a regression when it was noticed even if it was late. After deliberation, it is the opinion of the Appeals Committee that Sopath acted in good faith and had little control over the situation after their regression update was submitted. As an attempt to balance holding the player accountable, setting good precedents for the player experience, and taking corrective action towards competitive integrity, the Appeals Committee has voted to reduce Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension to 9 games.

Would the Appeals Committee be able to standardize including their decision not just as a reply, but also as an edit in the original post and updating the post title to include that the appeal has been processed?