Jump to content
Server time: 2018-07-17, 23:22 WE ARE RECRUITING

Sign in to follow this  
Roland

2016 Clean Sheet of the Year nominations

2016 Clean Sheet of the Year nominations  

227 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just now, Nolan said:

To give an award for not breaking rules to someone who was found guilty of one in a report would be a total farce.

The award isn't just for 'not breaking rules'. The Clean Sheet Award is given to those who have no warning points, behave maturely and appropriately and have shown outstanding understanding of the rules. The latter part is disputed because of a verbal warning given to a group Lyca was a part of. She herself was not found guilty of anything in either report.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Alex said:

The award isn't just for 'not breaking rules'. The Clean Sheet Award is given to those who have no warning points, behave maturely and appropriately and have shown outstanding understanding of the rules. The latter part is disputed because of a verbal warning given to a group Lyca was a part of. She herself was not found guilty of anything in either report.

My apologies for the misunderstanding, I read Thumper's post earlier on my phone and did not do so again before responding to Aiko -- my point still stands that it would be a joke to give an award for "showing an outstanding understanding of the rules" to someone staff has acknowledged broke one.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Nolan said:

My apologies for the misunderstanding, I read Thumper's post earlier on my phone and did not do so again before responding to Aiko -- my point still stands that it would be a joke to give an award for "showing an outstanding understanding of the rules" to someone staff has acknowledged broke one.

That is a good point yes, we're currently in discussion about it. Rolle will likely decide since these are his community awards after all.

Share this post


Link to post

I got me a pretty clean sheet :$

*brushes off shoulder* 

Share this post


Link to post

Already is a farce @Nolan. I have no issues with Lyca . Only talked to her a few times but they were pleasant. But of course if you point out that she didn't have a clean sheet of the year , staff circles the wagons and the rest of us are just trying to get her DQ'd. No , sorry. That's unacceptable. If you were found guilty in a report and yet you only received a verbal warning you were still FOUND GUILTY. Which proves that you in fact did not have a clean sheet of the year. So Yea call it whatever you want but stop trying to demonize people for attempting to make this legit.

Share this post


Link to post

We only looked at account warning history when determining eligibility. I'm not sure if a verbal warning in a report is a ground for disqualification. I'll have to think about it,currently busy at work. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Alex said:

The award isn't just for 'not breaking rules'. The Clean Sheet Award is given to those who have no warning points, behave maturely and appropriately and have shown outstanding understanding of the rules. The latter part is disputed because of a verbal warning given to a group Lyca was a part of. She herself was not found guilty of anything in either report.

cda18f469c.png

Named as suspect.

 

d70e835c37.png

 

Posts a POV.

 

3f680f9983.png

 

Laziness lists entire group as guilty.

Its okay, i got your back Administrator Alex.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, just getting the facts straight.  There are discussions about 2 community members who have been nominated for Clean Sheet Award.  Once has been involved in several reports, one of which the entire group was found guilty but given a verbal warning.  The 2nd, not involved in reports but did a little self-promoting.  Is that correct?

If so, based on the criteria, neither should be eligible for the award.  Period.  This is not one of those situations that requires a "case by case" examination.  The criteria are in black and white and both nominees have fallen short.

However, if we are looking at a "case by case" situation, these are two VERY different "offenses".  One shows some misunderstanding/misapplication of the rules.  The other shows some misguided judgment.  Should there be weight given to in game rules over community behavior?  I don't know.  But if there is, it seems to me that being able to play the game by the rules is a little more vital than tooting one's horn by hamming for votes...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kat said:

-

No rule is less valid than another. If it has been broken the appropriate punishment can be applied, if staff choose to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Alex said:

No rule is less valid than another. If it has been broken the appropriate punishment can be applied, if staff choose to do so. 

I'm not sure that you understood my post.  I'm not debating any punishment given by staff or their reasoning.  My response was meant to point out that there are issues with 2 nominees for the award, and that technically, both should be disqualified.  However, due to the responses from others, it appears that there is a debate about this.  And as we have seen, staff can choose to day and say anything.  The last part of my response had to do with the fact that if both of the nominees remain eligible, the emphasis of weighting their issues should be given thought.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Kat said:

-

In the end based on the debate I imagine either both or neither will be disqualified. I understood your post I just wanted to point that out. Like I said, Rolle's call.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, its come to my attention that even the third candidate, Bran,  has received a strong verbal warning for a rule break in a report as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Thumper said:

Actually, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, its come to my attention that even the third candidate, Bran,  has received a strong verbal warning for a rule break in a report as well. 

Would you prefer if nobody won and this award was voided?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Castiel said:

Would you prefer if nobody won and this award was voided?

Rules are rules and rulebreaks are rule breaks. I am but a humble messanger. 

Share this post


Link to post

I mean even if  its just a verbal warning a rule was still broken.

and @Aiko it doesn't matter if you have to DQ everyone its your own fault for not monitoring it properly/intime if you did you would have had time to get new people nominated as i'm pretty sure there is more than a just few people that are eligible for this title.IMO.

Edited by Keedz

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Castiel said:

Would you prefer if nobody won and this award was voided?

I don't think people prefer that nobody has won an award.   I do think it's important to keep things consistent and fair.  For example staff wants to throw the rule book at people like victor cruz and disqualify him even though he wasn't on a final but at some point was. Then you all add a stipulation after I get nominated which disqualifies me. 

Bottom line is staff can't pick and choose which people are exempting from following the rules.  Everyone must be held accountable to same standards.  And in this case a rule break is a rule break regardless of punishment. 

Share this post


Link to post

I agree it should be fair. The rules regarding people who are/were on final warning were there from the moment Rolle created the Information thread, same thing for Staff members who served less than 3 months throughout the year. Vic was and is still on a final warning. I agree it sucks that those who are/were on final cannot get nominated, a lot of them are fantastic role players and likely would've been winners if not runners up, but that's Rolle and the Admins decision - not mine.

In my personal opinion as a community member, regardless of the fact that the group Lyca was in at the time received a verbal warning, she should still win. She's winning the poll by a landslide and has been active on the forums and in-game since the day she signed up - something that I believe should be an important factor in this, considering it's 1000x easier to never get points or bans when you barely ever post on the forums or play on the server.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Castiel said:

I agree it should be fair. The rules regarding people who are/were on final warning were there from the moment Rolle created the Information thread, same thing for Staff members who served less than 3 months throughout the year. Vic was and is still on a final warning. I agree it sucks that those who are/were on final cannot get nominated, a lot of them are fantastic role players and likely would've been winners if not runners up, but that's Rolle and the Admins decision - not mine.

In my personal opinion as a community member, regardless of the fact that the group Lyca was in at the time received a verbal warning, she should still win. She's winning the poll by a landslide and has been active on the forums and in-game since the day she signed up - something that I believe should be an important factor in this, considering it's 1000x easier to never get points or bans when you barely ever post on the forums or play on the server.

Just overlook the rule breaks...g.g. a deciding factor is eligibility. 

Share this post


Link to post

before anything, i love lyca, helpdesk heroes for life and everything 

but, since the rules and guidelines are being upheld so strictly in these nominations, i think it should be done so in this scenario too.

Share this post


Link to post

Allow me to play devil's advocate.

The only issue I have with verbals is you can't really appeal them. At least I've never seen someone appeal a verbal. So if I get an actual verdict, I could appeal and have it removed, thus giving me zero points and no punishment—basically not guilty. With verbals, it remains regardless of right or wrong, and no one is has gone to the trouble of appealing what is essentially no punishment.

So can verbal warnings be appealed? If yes, then it is in fact an actual rule break and a punishment was issued. If not, then I believe there's nothing wrong here because you're effectively in a lose-lose situation with verbal warnings. Nothing but love for Hank, but just something I thought of when reading this.

Edited by Tosh
typo

Share this post


Link to post

Well it looks like all 3 candidates should technically be disqualified. But then we'd have no reward, as it's too late to start voting for other candidates who received even less nominations. So I will overlook these 1 time offences for all 3 candidates and let the voting continue as normal. It's too bad that these things are only surfacing now and not 3 weeks ago when the nominations started.

Share this post


Link to post

You said yourself all three are technically ineligible. Doesn't make sense to give the award and MVP to anyone who isn't eligible, and I think we'd be better off removing this award for this year and voiding it all together. In this case, I'd vote no award over an award with an asterisk beside it. Just my two cents. I'll shut up now before any more jimmies get rustled from any particular side. Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Castiel said:

I agree it should be fair. The rules regarding people who are/were on final warning were there from the moment Rolle created the Information thread, same thing for Staff members who served less than 3 months throughout the year. Vic was and is still on a final warning. I agree it sucks that those who are/were on final cannot get nominated, a lot of them are fantastic role players and likely would've been winners if not runners up, but that's Rolle and the Admins decision - not mine.

In my personal opinion as a community member, regardless of the fact that the group Lyca was in at the time received a verbal warning, she should still win. She's winning the poll by a landslide and has been active on the forums and in-game since the day she signed up - something that I believe should be an important factor in this, considering it's 1000x easier to never get points or bans when you barely ever post on the forums or play on the server.

I would like to respond to this. In all fairness just because I dont make a post every few seconds does not make me irrelevant. I have been here since Mod Days and have been here every since. I have taken short breaks here and there. But please do not make assumptions simply based on my post count. There are plently of people here that know me and know I am an avid player on the RP server. So Id prefer not to be talked down as such. In response to all of this. I have no bad feelings toward any of the other nominees. I just assumed like everyone else that staff had done their homework on the nominees prior to appointing them as candidates.

The main issue I had was the combat log report. In which several people have been called out on the offense and goven punishment but not so much the case here. I actually PMd a ban appeal to Jaime as he had done a verdict on that very offense about a week from when she was just given a verbal warning. All in all I still stand by the fact I have no salt for Lyca or Bran. Congrats to Lyca for the win.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Rolle said:

Well it looks like all 3 candidates should technically be disqualified. But then we'd have no reward, as it's too late to start voting for other candidates who received even less nominations. So I will overlook these 1 time offences for all 3 candidates and let the voting continue as normal. It's too bad that these things are only surfacing now and not 3 weeks ago when the nominations started.

Sorry I am only so good at discovering this type of thing on a consistant timeframe.  I dont have the resources the staff do to do their job for them. But its typical that when things are discovered that 'stray from the norm' that people circle the wagons and instead being fair and consistant, they change things to counter the balances. 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Thumper said:

Sorry I am only so good at discovering this type of thing on a consistant timeframe.  I dont have the resources the staff do to do their job for them. But its typical that when things are discovered that 'stray from the norm' that people circle the wagons and instead being fair and consistant, they change things to counter the balances. 

If I have learned anything about these awards it's staff will check every fine detail when it comes to a people who they don't like or are deemed "troublemakers", but are willing to overlook or not even extend the same efforts to members they approve of.   

This is not a knock on lyca.  She is one of the few good staff members and a kind person.  But if it was me, thumper or anyone else similar I strongly believe they would be doing extensive background checks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×