2024-AT-04: Staff and Evilchumlee Upheld

Datcord said:
To be clear, that call wasn't made by some nebulous "Staff", it was made directly by me. While I could have just gone with "Uphold" as a "The Council upheld the original decision.", I ultimately felt that the spirit of it was an increase from the Arbitrator's call, which was a decision of "Yes, this broke the rules, but I feel it was marginal and thus some clemency is allowed here." (which is a perfectly fine judgement to reach, SV staff has long held the position of "do the least harm possible" when it comes to rule enforcement).

Frankly, I could have made an argument for either way and convinced myself it was correct.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We were all pretty unhappy about having to increase so I don't think anyone on the council would contest that's how we conceptualized it either.

Kadmus said:
Always entertaining to see the defence degenerate into 'Fuck You I'm Right And I'd Do It Again, You Evil Rapists'. Definitely makes the poor advocate's tack seem, uh, unwise, given it's basically saying 'just permaban this guy already as he is incapable of learning'.

But then you can't exactly control your client even in real life, let alone in SV; it doesn't reflect on the advocate, here (but failing the Four Corners absolutely does, to be clear).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's why you don't let your client take the stand :V
 
Fey'lya said:
one, we disagree that evilchumlee will "never" get it, he has been making progress and at least wants to improve.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The only progress I've seen him make is (sometimes) realising that the entire thread shouting him down is a good indicator of him having posted something infraction-worthy and deleting it.
 
Night said:
In arguing that Evilchumlee has yet to "get it" across either sixteen or eight months, and over a thousand posts, they de facto argue that Evilchumlee will never get it. This is the opposite of an argument for leniency. I do not know what possessed the advocate to make it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nyvis said:
[...]though the appellant's attitude in the tribunal could definitely justify a pirate principle user review.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm new-ish here and I like reading tribunals and getting a sense for the decisions in them. I apologize for guessing at motives, but I'm trying to understand why their behavior isn't a Pirate Principle moment. They mention in both threads how proud they would be to get banned for their views - which is a common trend in some other Tribunals where users do get Rule 0'd.

I assume that the reason this isn't a Rule 0 violation is because they're not openly flouting the rules, just being unnecessarily combative about their views in an appeal? Or is this an example of clemency regarding two highly-volatile threads (and a concern for the chilling effect of Rule 0'ing on an appeal for an otherwise smaller infraction from a thread with an elevated standard of behavior?)

I apologize again if the speculation isn't appropriate, but it would be helpful for my understanding.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely expect we will be seeing a Pirate Principle trial within the next three months, being frank.
 
Gonna be real, building your defense on the foundation of "I'm very sorry about what I did and am trying to improve" and then immediately going "but I was right and I'd do it again, ban me if you dare" no less than six separate times (including once in an entirely different tribunal thread for a separate infraction that you are also appealing)[1] is perhaps not the best way to win the council over. Honestly I'm surprised staff didn't step in to enforce the "a Tribunal is not a debate" rule like they have with previous cases where appellants could not resist debating the Council.

[1] One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six
 
Last edited:
CrabMonarchy said:
Gonna be real, building your defense on the foundation of "I'm very sorry about what I did and am trying to improve" and then immediately going "but I was right and I'd do it again, ban me if you dare" no less than six separate times (including once in entirely different tribunal thread for an separate infraction that you are also appealing)[1] is perhaps not the best way to win the council over. Honestly I'm surprised staff didn't step in to enforce the "a Tribunal is not a debate" rule like they have with previous cases where appellants could not resist debating the Council.

[1] One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly I suspect @Datcord and co were too shocked by my early post to the same effect, and then being forced to agree with me, and the stunlock carried them through until it was a bit too late to object to what it had become.

(Also, more realistically, a lot of those posts were made in the day or so before the thread closed, if I recall correctly, so there wasn't much time to react, nor much point to it.)
 
There's also the fact that getting hit with more points would have put them into User Review, if I understand that correctly. And given the way they love to request bans and refuse any semblance of backing down that would very likely have led to a permaban.

If the council is mindful of Increase rulings having a chilling effect, then I imagine an Increase leading directly to a permaban would result in even greater caution.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top