Appeal decision from Pandora: Denied

[Soilderz]

fight anger with the axe!

[Aquatiq]

A man's gotta try! But yeah, I'm fighting a losing battle here.

[Squadless]

thank you NAS for pointing that out and thank you APOC for what you said. The reason i believe i am not in league is because 1. this deals with pandora and 2. it is me. If this dealt with -final- and with a player like Domi, we wont be having this conversation right here. IF you guys wanna read the rules anally than I can do it as well, Na$ just brought up my point. We will surely be sending in another appeal trying to overrule this. Until you can prove that mouse axed me purposely or that w/e reading me/nas/apoc share about the rule 5.08( i think ) the 24 h is wrong i should be allowed back onto roster. The onus is on staff to prove all this not us, because all of pandora including myself and mouse said it was an accident, what more do you need.

eelam i think you're misunderstanding the point. its not about the number of appeals that you send , why?, because the same people will rule on them,
the peolpe reading this thread get to say in the appeal and it looksl ike you're not liked by many... so if you try to appeal to the people who dont really like you, do you think you will get anywhere??? i even heard someone in pub 321 say that you should be banend from SSCU for being axed from pandora

[Reaver]

There is a flaw in the rules. The only way to cover the flaw is by making assumptions and suggesting things. I will explain why Eelam should probably still be eligable to play:

1. There is no definition of the word accidently in TWL rules. It can be interpretated in different ways, meaning you can't exclude certain things from it just because you see it different. That leads us to point 2;


2. If a squadcaptain removes someone from roster but changes his mind within 24 hours its basically up to him. Besides that the player itself, Eelam, had no intention on leaving the squad which means he didnt leave volunteerly. Afterall after some thinking the captain realized that he didnt want to kick Eelam so he made a mistake by accident.

I do understand that the majority in here thinks its not accidental. But since TWL rules do not give a definition on the word accidently you can't actually deny the appeal if you take your own rules seriously. I couldn't care less, but thats just the way it is. A simple example is for instance: you can't steal goods. Sure thats nice, but in lawbooks you will find also the part where it is explained what stealing is.

1) By that logic there are many rules for TWL that need to be explained in more depth or there would be many "loopholes"

2) By that logic our appeal should be granted.

3) I just looked up the definition of accidentally online and no matter how you interpret it, it wouldn't apply differently to their situation in any way (Unless you're referring to the musical definition in which case it wouldn't apply at all)

4) Your second rule is incorrect, the rule obviously states that if the deroster is intentional, regardless of whether the captain or the entire squad changes their mind, the deroster stands. What you're suggesting is changing the rules, and we've already gone over countless times how this was definitely not an accident.

5) The fact that eelam was booted off Pandora and it wasn't his decision is a moot point. It's the captain's decision to boot someone or not, whether the person agree's with it or not, that's why he's the captain and the other person isn't.

6) What you're suggesting is changing the rule entirely, and although I encourage open debate about the rules, we're discussing here whether the rule applies at all, not how to change it so that it does.

Edit: When you agree to participate in TWL you agree to follow the rules. If you don't understand the rules, well you're in trouble because you just agreed to follow them, so it's your responsibility to understand them, that includes understanding the definition of common day terms such as "accidentally".

[Spikester]

Pandora has to pay for it's dumb captains, sucks to be eelam

[Reaver]

thank you NAS for pointing that out and thank you APOC for what you said. The reason i believe i am not in league is because 1. this deals with pandora and 2. it is me. If this dealt with -final- and with a player like Domi, we wont be having this conversation right here. IF you guys wanna read the rules anally than I can do it as well, Na$ just brought up my point. We will surely be sending in another appeal trying to overrule this. Until you can prove that mouse axed me purposely or that w/e reading me/nas/apoc share about the rule 5.08( i think ) the 24 h is wrong i should be allowed back onto roster. The onus is on staff to prove all this not us, because all of pandora including myself and mouse said it was an accident, what more do you need.

You guys do the same thing quicksand does and it's really old. Build up a reputation where people openly dislike you for obvious reasons. Stir up drama, and break rules that obviously point out what you did wrong. When all else fails, complain that the only reason the rule applies to you is because people dislike you even though you made it so.

The burden is on you to prove that the deroster was accidental, not the other way around. You're going to have a difficult time though, since myself and about 20+ other people saw Mouse admit to the intentional deroster in ?go base.

[Na$]

1) By that logic there are many rules for TWL that need to be explained in more depth or there would be many "loopholes"

2) By that logic our appeal should be granted.

3) I just looked up the definition of accidentally online and no matter how you interpret it, it wouldn't apply differently to their situation in any way (Unless you're referring to the musical definition in which case it wouldn't apply at all)

4) Your second rule is incorrect, the rule obviously states that if the deroster is intentional, regardless of whether the captain or the entire squad changes their mind, the deroster stands. What you're suggesting is changing the rules, and we've already gone over countless times how this was definitely not an accident.

5) The fact that eelam was booted off Pandora and it wasn't his decision is a moot point. It's the captain's decision to boot someone or not, whether the person agree's with it or not, that's why he's the captain and the other person isn't.

6) What you're suggesting is changing the rule entirely, and although I encourage open debate about the rules, we're discussing here whether the rule applies at all, not how to change it so that it does.

Okay Reaver, just look at my last just added point and my comment after, what is your response on that?
Why is this soooo important to make sure he don't gets to play? I don't understand that. What happened with Pandora, is that so against the rules? That much?

-----
4. Rules are set with a certain purpose. You have to wonder yourself if the rules were set to exclude people from TWL in week 10 after a squadargument that lasted less than half a day? Or were the rules set to prevent people from squadhopping etc. Eelam never left squad and never wanted to leave Pandora. I don't think the TWL rules were meant to exclude people in this situation from playing TWL.
-----
Plus one thing I am wondering: all people jump on the bandwagon to make sure Eelam don't get to play. But why? Personal gain? I don't even know Eelam but just by looking at his situation I don't think he should be excluded from TWL since he didn't do anything wrong. What happened? An argument and someone clicked the button too rapidly without thinking. Is that really such a big deal? Are we that little children that we don't give someone a second chance in a league that we all have to wait like half a year for? Give me a break. That sounds pathetic. If that what TWL rules are meant for, pff what a joke.

[Reaver]

Okay Reaver, just look at my last just added point and my comment after, what is your response on that?
Why is this soooo important to make sure he don't gets to play? I don't understand that.

-----
4. Rules are set with a certain purpose. You have to wonder yourself if the rules were set to exclude people from TWL in week 10 after a squadargument that lasted less than half a day? Or were the rules set to prevent people from squadhopping etc. Eelam never left squad and never wanted to leave Pandora. I don't think the TWL rules were meant to exclude people in this situation from playing TWL.
-----
Plus one thing I am wondering: all people jump on the bandwagon to make sure Eelam don't get to play. But why? Personal gain? I don't even know Eelam but just by looking at his situation I don't think he should be excluded from TWL since he didn't do anything wrong. What happened? An argument and someone clicked the button too rapidly without thinking. Is that really such a big deal? Are we that little children that we don't give someone a second chance in a league that we all have to wait like half a year for? Give me a break. That sounds pathetic. If that what TWL rules are meant for, pff what a joke.

Why is it sooo important that any rules are followed in TWL? Again, when you agree to play in TWL, you agree to follow the rules. When you agree to follow the rules it's your responsibility to understand them. Our situation was different because a rule wasn't established regarding that specific incident but there is a rule regarding this specific incident. I've already pointed out that this impacts me little if at all.

[Squadless]

you guys are arguing about things that arnt imported... you shoudl argue about how the disoblige vs sake game twld game is gonna be played.. look when its scheduled to be played... NOW THATS A LOOPHOLE

[Aquatiq]

you guys are arguing about things that arnt imported... you shoudl argue about how the disoblige vs sake game twld game is gonna be played.. look when its scheduled to be played... NOW THATS A LOOPHOLE

wtf is that for real?

[Reaver]

you guys are arguing about things that arnt imported... you shoudl argue about how the disoblige vs sake game twld game is gonna be played.. look when its scheduled to be played... NOW THATS A LOOPHOLE

crazy boy you no hungry for finding loophole, you hungry for hotpocket!

[Na$]

Why is it sooo important that any rules are followed in TWL? Again, when you agree to play in TWL, you agree to follow the rules. When you agree to follow the rules it's your responsibility to understand them. Our situation was different because a rule wasn't established regarding that specific incident but there is a rule regarding this specific incident. I've already pointed out that this impacts me little if at all.

We are not talking about any rule.
Keep it to this situation. In a fight, week 10, someone got derostered. They talked about it and the captain changed his mind, he doesnt want to keep him unrostered afterall. They are friends now again. That all within 24 hours. Is that so much against the rules that the one who got axed shouldnt be able to play for the same squad he actually never left?
I just miss the point where WE (as competitors in the league) really don't want him to parcipate in TWL anymore. What rules were broken? He got derostered. What did it mean? What was changed by derostering? What was changed now that he got back within 24 hours on roster? Absolutely nothing changed. So why prevent him from playing? Afterall should Eelam be blamed for a nerdy action of his squadcaptain? It makes no moral sense.

[Subjugation]

That misses the point. Pandora doesn't need to justify or explain anything about the axing - it was deemed an accident by the entire squad and retracted within 24 hours.

The only "accident" that was made was not reading and understanding Hard Lock.

I think that when Mouse axed him, he didn't realize he wasn't going to be able to reverse it before the next TWL game. But even if that's the case, it still means the axe was intentional, at the time it took place.

There's just too much evidence against the argument that Eelam was axed by accident. I don't dislike everyone on Pandora, either. I've never even spoken to you personally, before. But I will say that you do appear terribly desperate, and I'm sorry the rest of your team has to suffer because Eelam is a retard and Mouse doesn't understand the rules.

[Reaver]

We are not talking about any rule.
Keep it to this situation. In a fight, week 10, someone got derostered. They talked about it and the captain changed his mind, he doesnt want to keep him unrostered afterall. They are friends now again. That all within 24 hours. Is that so much against the rules that the one who got axed shouldnt be able to play for the same squad he actually never left?

Yes.

See the previous 3 pages for clarification.

[Squadless]

wtf is that for real?

hell yeah... pascone cant play thsi weekend so we're making it on a weekday