Napoleonic Wars League [Season 1-4]

[Evanovic]

Well retrospectivness (is that even a word?) is a feature of the English system and it seems to work fine. It is one of the key features of judicial precedent. (Criminal and Civil).

Edit: Reje on the prowl [cue semi-dramatic musical]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
 
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.[1]
 
And for good reason. It would be nice if similar reasoning was applied here in Nutty's case.

[Jammo]

#People using highly educated English to try and confuse the NW Simpletons.

Edit: Needed a hashtag

[Hekko]

Please, if you're going to argue about nuttys ban then do so, but at the moment you are barely even arguing about the ban.. And even so, nothing new can really be added to the said argument, the organisers have given there view and reasons, you have argued the same point over and over and nothing has been gained (apart from numerous pages of spam)

Back on topic, gg to the 14e and 7te, was a very entertaining match to watch

If anything is spam it's the first paragraph of your post. Have you seen the reasoning of the organisers? "We have decided to do it this way, because that's the way we have decided it".

[MagicTeatowel]

Well retrospectivness (is that even a word?) is a feature of the English system and it seems to work fine. It is one of the key features of judicial precedent. (Criminal and Civil).

Edit: Reje on the prowl [shivers]

Actually, retroactivity of laws is generally forbidden or de facto forbidden in most civilized countries constitutions.

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.

[Hadhod]

@ 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.

[Evanovic]

"We have decided to do it this way, because that's the way we have decided it".

Indeed, this is not the way to really go about keeping a community tournament going. This evidently isn't the first one of these incidents, and likely will not be the last, where organiser discretion has held it's participants' welfare in complete contempt, when the general idea of a community tournament is to facilitate goodwill and adjudicate community clashes. Instead the way issues have been dealt with is in an unpredictable and obfuscated manner, often with little real explanation for the logic behind the decisions. As tournament adjudicators, the best way to prevent 'drama' like this is to be as impartial and transparent as possible in judgement and to think through problematic scenarios deeply before putting out rules and regulations, definitely not to adopt one sides moral/emotional position whilst not disclosing the logic behind taking it. Seriously, it's not healthy to do things in the current manner. At the very least you could keep your reprisals tame when taking a side in a controversial issue. The 4 match ban for breaking a rule that never existed is just ridiculous.

[Hadhod]

So we're back on the "We hate Bever and Brot for organising this tournament" attitude again? Cbaed to continue this argument any further. I've said anything that I think had to be said, you repeated your points twice or three times.
Get some sleep and see if you're still so upset tomorrow morning.

[HumanRightsWatcher]

Well Nr.24, if you guys dont like the rules of this event or its organisers....

Why don't you host your own Leage with rules that allow people to insult as much as they want! 

Oh wait.. The nr24 can't make any topics cause they get locked...

[Nano]

Well Nr.24, if you guys dont like the rules of this event or its organisers....

Why don't you host your own Leage with rules that allow people to insult as much as they want! 

Oh wait.. The nr24 can't make any topics cause they get locked...

Good one, but the majority of the statements in this thread are massive Straw Man fallacies, some of them even Ad Hominem's which really degrades everything said.

[Matthew]

Can't tell if you are replying to the obvious troll post or everything posted in the last 5 pages...

[Styrepils]

Oh, for a second there I thought it was Nuttypig that received this punishment as an individual and not nr24..

[Nano]

Can't tell if you are replying to the obvious troll post or everything posted in the last 5 pages...

Both

[Rejenorst]

Well retrospectivness (is that even a word?) is a feature of the English system and it seems to work fine. It is one of the key features of judicial precedent. (Criminal and Civil).

Edit: Reje on the prowl [cue semi-dramatic musical]

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.

[PrideofNi]

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.

[Who-]

All this QQ. So much QQ endless amounts of QQ.