05-30-2019, 09:21 AMBaelor Swift Wrote: Why are people getting so hung up on "within reason"? It's there to prevent another debacle akin to the publicly posting contracts... to cover for obvious tampering attempts without needing to try to list every possible way someone could potentially tamper then having a huge problem when someone still finds a way to tamper that technically was not explicitly outlined in the rules.

This whole "within reason" language is not abnormal in contracts/regulations and helps to cover for any situations that may arise. This was a unique situation in which a GM publicly targeted individual players on a single team discussing roles. I don't think you can blame HO for not thinking to add this case to the rulebook before it arose. However, I think a few things should come from this...

1. A more clear definition of what contract discussions entail (although I think anyone can reasonably agree that discussing individuals' potential roles with a team is a very standard and essential part of contract discussions)
2. The rule should have the language changed to allow for more nuance in assigning punishment by essentially saying "Those found guilty of tampering will be punished by receiving up to the following penalties:..."
3. An appeal should be made and the punishment should be reduced
4. Someone should check what the fuck is going on with Shmurph and why he hasn't fired Daco yet because even there was no such thing as tampering, this is a horrible look for anyone to do, let alone a GM... oh yeah, and the fact that the guy ghosted instead of taking any responsibility for this.

I agree with a lot of what you said here.

And just to comment on that final point. I talked to Shmuprh for a bit last night on Discord, and obviously Daco is no longer the co-GM, but the focus right now is getting a proper appeal written and sent to hopefully lessen the punishment.