My apologies for lingering in this thread. I left the page open when I left to attend a meeting with the bereavement center funeral director.
Shall I buy a coffin for the community as well while I am there?
I suppose I'll give my piss ant opinion for what its worth :/
There's no rule that says I can't fart in someone's dinner plate in a swish restaurant but common sense tells me I won't be permitted back in should I edge my buttocks within millimeters of some posh unsuspecting diner's meal and allow the lofty gases of my colon juice to descend upon his magnificent Creme Brulee.
Arguing that this is the internet and that one must narrowly define the parameters of accepted good sportsmanship before proceeding to punish perceived bad behavior is a logic that eats itself since no rule states that you have to do so in the first place and because... its the internet. However I would still follow Hekko's suggestion.
Having said that; I am sure Nutty meant to jokingly provoke the ire of some of the community members in a joking fashion. I hardly think he actually advocates racism but then maybe I don't know him so well. Perhaps discussing the matter with Nutty personally and exercising some forgiveness is a policy that would be worthwhile pursuing in order to promote a healthier community.
I honestly don't know and I honestly can't make a decision for anyone. I just hope you guys don't get angry at each other and lash out over something that could probably be fixed easily if each party is willing to sit down and discuss it. Or not... I don't know.
Putting your rear end in someones dessert is not really insulting anyone any longer, you're actually taking some form of action against them.
You are right though, they should have said whoops, our bad, loophole in the rules, and changed it for the next time. The stuff Nutty said was not even that bad, certainly not in line with what HadHod or others have suggested that it is.
Well the UK doesn't really have a constitution.
Anyway, in English law judges can make the law as well as parliament, this meaning the laws made by judges are retrospective. An example of this can be seen in R v R (1991) when a husband raped his wife and was found guilty, even though at the time it was "legal" your for a husband to rape wife. This decision will have a ratio decidendi and obiter remarks that will have binding/persuasive impact on future cases of similar fact, even though parliament may not of created/updated the law regarding the subject. However once a decision is made like this, it usually forces parliament into reform.
Pretty much litterally every other country has some form of safeguard against this in their constitution. Australia is partially an exception, but de facto they do not interpret laws retroactively.
@ Hekko
Regarding the Bydand thing. I do not mind if pubbers for example use it when we invade the pulic servers. However if people who track down my FB profile and use my pictures to make montages of it, who tell me "to go suck a c*** while being [behold] bydanded by a cactus" etc use it in such ways you can't be that stupid to actually believe that they are praising our historical authenticy with that.
The ton of frivolous complaints and screenshots of people saying bydand, you and other unnamed members of the 92nd have produced as "evidence" of us trolling you has determined that this was a lie. Having said that though, there is some bad blood between some of our members and the 92nd. But you quite clearly see the issue of subjectivity of insults here.
After, for some reason, reading the last 10 pages it was rather hilarious to see the position of "he shouldn't have been banned because the insult wasn't bad + not in the rules" to "he shouldn't have been banned because (insult is irrelevant!) its not in the rules" from a number of community members. All of whom, bar one, is in the Nr24.
Your member got banned, for I presume, as most of you admitted it was an insult, insulting an entire regiment in a competitive match. Either you are all naive or you are once again trying to create issues for your own ends. Ofcourse there was going to be a reaction and it is entirely Pigs fault for the reaction, or the Nr24 leadership for not controlling their members. Either or, I am going to presume its the first option..
The logic behind the mute button is totally illogical. A mute button is not a get away from being punished for being a dick. Particularly if its fired at an entire regiment. Damage is already done either way.
Finally, since we all agree its common sense not to insult, particularly in a league match and against people you don't know, arguing because its not in the rules is silly. It falls under the administration reserving the right to remove anyone whom they do not wish to have in the tournament, if you really want something for it to fall under. Nr24 was allowed to play in the league, nowhere in the rules does it guarantee all Nr24 players the right to play.
The Nr24 are allowed to play in the league by virtue of having been accepted. If you are going to point out omissions in the rules (which are far from perfect) I would suggest that you start at the way scores are being kept track of.
The thing is, people keep stating that it should be "common sense" not to say anything. Because they seem to think that everyone's common sense is the same, and somehow a valid substitute to the rules.
Lets examine the rules.
Common sense dictates that you should have as many players as your opponent, yet still you are allowed a one man advantage, I would assume for the reasons HadHod has explained.
Common sense would dictate that maps should be fair an balanced, yet still the way it's set up at the moment it is set up to have a massive hill on the map. I would assume to benefit campers.
Most tournaments dictate that you are not to spout nonsense during the tournament, this one does not. The omission can easily be interpreted as some smack talk being allowed, on purpose, in order to allow the regiments with nerves of steel to excel a bit more than other regiments that get worked up about the chat too easily.
I am not saying everyone interprets it this way, I am simply saying that it is a plausible enough scenario, making the claim of "common sense" point very moot, even if we accept that "common sense" is a substitute for rules (a claim which is wrong to begin with).
Secondly, it's painfully obvious that the spartans are worked up about losing and lodging this frivolous complaint to somehow feel that they have done harm to us. As said, if they were concerned about getting it to stop they could have ignored it for 5 seconds, muted it and we would not be having this discussion here. The frivolous nature of the complaint is grounds enough to dismiss the complaint in my eyes, especially since it's not grounded in the rules.
