Posts from Is an AK (assault rifle) necessary or not in principle? (poll)

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! :)

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?

Well, generally speaking, as far as the first instance is concerned, I understand that one of the Arbitration Committee members made a decision, but the Arbitration Committee didn't even exist back then. Now, the Arbitration Committee's decision is being disregarded as a whole, so investigating the motives of one of its members for this inconsistency is not entirely relevant to the topic.

P.S. Tell me, has anyone ever been satisfied with their own punishment in life? For example, a traffic cop stopped you, wrote a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 5 km/h, and you bowed and said, "Thank you, comrade! Excellent work!" :D

Once, a traffic cop stopped me when I exceeded the speed limit by 19 km on a highway. They were repairing the road, the limit was 40 km, and I was driving at 59 km. He told me I had violated the rules, and I replied, "Well, I did, what can I do now? I admit my guilt," with a sheepish look on my face. And he just said, "Don't do it again," and let me go.

Thanks to my opponent, he reacted normally to the situation that occurred, including due to my fault. He didn't start throwing baseless accusations and even suggested finishing the game!

Numerous examples from various sports are cited to support this, and each time the conclusion is the same: the penalty should only affect the team in which the disciplinary violation occurred. Why should it be different in this case?

Disqualification for doping, diagnosed in one match, ranges from one season to a lifetime ban.

Besides, everyone already knows that cheating took place.

The AC made a balanced and wise decision. It is no wonder that it enjoys well-deserved respect among most users of OUR site.

The person probably thought the incident was resolved back then. But when the topic resurfaces two months later, how should he react?

Let me address your point about the traffic cop. Imagine your violation was recorded by automated systems like "Vizir" and similar ones. Just like in Europe, you would receive a report and photos from the scene by mail after some time, and usually with missed deadlines for appealing :D. So what? ;)

Ps: I'm starting to doubt your objectivity. So, you understand and even justify Alex's dissatisfaction, but dissatisfaction with the AK regarding their unwillingness to explain things promptly and clearly is a crime?

In cases of defending against accusations of unfair play, the defending party provides, if possible, any evidence of their fair play. At the same time, information is requested from the accusing party.

... And many of those who now, guided by herd instinct, vehemently defend AK, will curse the moment when they supported this AK decision and AK itself.

it seems like you just flew by, saw a pile of crap, and decided to dive in headfirst, wallow around, and have a good time.

Back then, everyone believed him when he said he didn't do it on purpose. They simply invalidated his save, but they didn't ban him as a cheater. Now, this same person, in a similar situation (in my opinion, the act and its consequences are clearly less severe than the previous one), doesn't believe another person and votes in favor of awarding him the "Champion of Moral Courage" award.

But how else can we describe a decision that led to such consequences? There are now many people who are justifiably dissatisfied, people are leaving the forum, and an opposition to the Arbitration Committee is emerging, etc. None of this existed before.

P.S. I'm looking at your avatar, and with each post, it increasingly reflects your real image:rolleyes:

No, let me correct you. This person didn't vote against "Might and Magic: Heroes", so let's not spread misinformation.

I am sure that V.V. Putin is a very reasonable person, and he will immediately understand that the head of the city will not send such letters to him. He will get a reprimand for negligence, but no one will send him to Kolyma, and he will not be removed from his position, unless he had any previous offenses.

Please explain in more detail what is inappropriate about the AK's decision, and what do you think "He will be punished for negligence" means. But please, don't stray from the topic, I hope we can avoid lengthy discussions about traffic police spanning 3 pages)). Believe me, it is very difficult to find the truth and meaning in your messages, especially when they are spread over 7-8 pages or more... Thank you in advance for your answers! ;)