Neoandy
Auto-translated
Example 4.
4.1. During a lunch break, citizen X entered the office of the Administration of city N. Fortunately for him, the employees of the Administration had left the room unattended. :confused:
4.2. Citizen X printed a letter on official letterhead with the seal of the Administration of city N, and on behalf of the Administration, he sent a rude message to V.V. Putin. :smile38:
4.3. V.V. Putin receives this letter. :smile29:
Now, a simple and clear question: who is to blame, and what will happen to the Head of the city after this? :confused: Please answer without hesitation! :)
It's very simple. I understand that after Putin received the letter, and after the Head of the city was reprimanded, citizen X confessed to his "joke" - i.e., a parallel to our situation.
Answer.
1. Citizen X will be punished for forging documents or hooliganism, or, depending on the details, for another offense.
2. Depending on the damage caused, the city hall security will be held accountable, either for criminal negligence in the form of carelessness, etc., or face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal and compensation for damages.
3. As for what will happen to the Head of the city (who, even knowing that the signature on the document is definitely not his ;) and also, a certain citizen X was found who confessed to everything wholeheartedly :D), if he decides to show off in front of Mr. V.V. and send him away with a demand to explain everything clearly and unambiguously (because he is not guilty!!! that's the main thing!!!) - guess for yourself :D I think the city is close to holding new elections ;)
Added 53 minutes ago
I cited above an example of how, two years ago, in a similar situation, but in an offline tournament, it was documented with the help of a video recording that a player violated the rules by changing the game mechanics. Then everyone believed him on his word that he did not do it intentionally. They simply annulled his save, but did not ban him as a cheater. Now, the same person, in a similar situation (in my opinion, the depth of the act and the consequences are clearly less than in the previous one), does not believe another person on his word and votes for awarding him the "Champion of Cheating" title. Neo, agree that some consistency in decisions should be observed. Even if there is no precedent here. Otherwise, we believe one person on his word, but not the other. Or is it all because one is a representative of the administration, and the other is a visiting guest from another resource?
Consistency should definitely be maintained. I don't know about the previous situation, its specifics, or who exactly we are talking about, so it is difficult to assess anything.
When I started my professional career and said to a judge: "Wait! How so? You considered a similar case and made a different decision!" I was told: "Each case is individual." ;) It may seem the same from the outside, but dig deeper - each has its own nuances that are important for the case.
In general, in the first case, I understand that one of the members of the Arbitration Committee made the decision, and at that time the Arbitration Committee did not even exist. Now, the decision of the Arbitration Committee as a whole is being challenged, so investigating the motives of inconsistency of one of its members is not entirely appropriate to this topic.
P.S. Tell me: has anyone ever been satisfied with their own punishment in life? For example, a traffic cop stopped you, drew up a report for exceeding the speed limit by 5 km/h, and you (with all the passengers in the car), bowing, said: "Thank you, comrade! Excellent work!" :D
