Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- decisions:venom_mod_abuse [2013/02/05 13:03]
bragzor
+++ decisions:venom_mod_abuse [2020/11/08 04:02] (current)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<WRAP center round info 20%>
+That's an mod abuse
+\\
+t. [[people:vladimirr|Arbiter]]
+</WRAP>
 === Participants ===
 \\
@@ Line 5: / Line 12: @@
 \\
 === Events ===
-On March 3rd 2013 areteee's, who is part of the [[http://dev-urandom.eu/doku.php/nations:hbe2#supporters|nazi-mongol-alliance]], may have remotely caused the death of PPA at spawn area. Without any request or formal complaint [[people:venomthrope|venomthrope]] decided to ban [[people:areteee|areteee]] saying that spawn area was neutral.\\
+On March 3rd 2013 areteee's, who is part of the [[http://dev-urandom.eu/doku.php/nations:hbe2#supporters|nazi-mongol-alliance]], killed PPA at spawn area. Without any request or formal complaint [[people:venomthrope|venomthrope]] decided to ban [[people:areteee|areteee]] saying that spawn area was neutral.\\
 \\
 However: \\
 ) Venom did not see the "killing"\\
-) The logs state that PPA died of fire\\
+) The logs state that PPA died of fire - fire arrows are very powerful indeed\\
-) Even if areteee had killed PPA since they are at war it would have been legal\\
+) Even if areteee had killed PPA since they are at war it might have been legal if it had happened somewhere else\\
-) There is no positive rule stating that new spawn is a neutral area, venomthrope banned without a rule\\
+) There is no positive rule stating that new spawn is a neutral area, although this fact is actually unquestioned. Only formally, venomthrope might have banned without a rule\\
-) Even if there was such a rule, it would have had to specify what is defined as "spawn" and how large the neutral\\ "area" is, furthermore what "neutral" even means.\\
+) Even if there was such a rule, it would have had to specify what is defined as "spawn" and how large the neutral\\ "area" is, furthermore what "neutral", "area" or "defined" even means.\\
-Summarizing: spawns are neutral, but it doesn't mean you can't kill there anyone.
+Summarizing: **spawns are neutral**, but it doesn't mean you can't kill there anyone.
-) In the end venomthrope did not once justify the ban, nor did he reply to any complaints at all.\\
+) In the end venomthrope did not <del>once justify the ban, nor did he</del> reply to any complaints at all.\\
+) The ban was considered too short by many other players <wrap hi>[citation needed]</wrap>.\\
 === Summary ===
-Venomthrope violated basic principles such as in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo|dubio pro reo]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullum_crimen,_nulla_poena_sine_praevia_lege_poenali|nulla poena sine lege]], <del>the need for a formal complaint to be filled</del>[Mods do not need a formal complaint. They can, and do, judge on e.g. griefing without a complaint all the time.], refused to justify his ban in any way.
+Areteee claims that venomthrope violated basic principles such as in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo|dubio pro reo]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullum_crimen,_nulla_poena_sine_praevia_lege_poenali|nulla poena sine lege]], <del>the need for a formal complaint to be filled</del>[Mods do not need a formal complaint. They can, and do, judge on e.g. griefing without a complaint all the time.], refused to justify his ban a second time because he already named a reason.
 === Proposed solution ===
-Since the ban has already expired, which doesnt undo the injustice done, the admin should prevent further mod abuse by\\ reprimanding venomthrope through warning, de-modding or similiar actions. \\
+Since the ban has already expired and justice was done, the admin should prevent actual and potential mod abuse, instead of dealing with this complaint. \\
 === Logs1 ===