Got it — here’s a cleaned-up, neutral rewrite that keeps the substance but removes insults and makes the argument clearer and more defensible. I’ll also add a shorter punchy version in case you want something lighter.
I believed the game had chat enabled because Stain was actively typing (e.g. “2/1 etc.”). I only wrote “we no peace,” and this did not affect the game, especially since Stain continued attacking my gold mines with five chimeras while I was already fighting Orc.
Once Eshan explicitly told me that this was a NO CHAT game, I stopped writing immediately and did not post anything for the rest of the match.
Given the circumstances, I believe a reduced penalty would have been more appropriate. Stain initiated and continued the chat, Eshan wrote at least once, and I wrote minimally and stopped as soon as the rule was clarified. Treating all chat violations as equally severe does not reflect their actual impact on the game.
Additionally, I was not informed before the match that it was a NO CHAT game. As a player, I cannot reasonably be held fully responsible for missing information that should have been communicated beforehand.
I thought chat was allowed because Stain was already typing. I wrote one line (“we no peace”) and stopped immediately once I was told it was a NO CHAT game.
Stain initiated and continued chat; others also wrote. Equal penalties don’t reflect the actual impact or intent.
If you want, I can also:
-
make it more diplomatic (admin-friendly),
-
make it more sarcastic (but still safe),
-
or turn it into a formal appeal style text.
what they don't understand how important of a data set this would be to train on. Same, probably even better, the assurance call forum. But like, so the discussion is, so one option would have been to nullify the game and then I think five penalty points for Gradient who chatted because Stein started to chat would have been too much. But he went on to win the game. So it's actually, well, it's like, well, so 10 points for winning the game. So I think it's actually kind of lenient. The thing is, Ishan, the captain, that's how he shared, of course, told the rookie player beforehand that it's a no chat game. But like, so I just want an extra opinion. So I need an extra arbiter on this.
Here’s a clean third-party arbiter view, stripped of team loyalty and emotions, focusing on incentives, precedent, and proportionality.
The tale has been stolen; if detected on Amazon, report the violation.
-
The game was officially NoChat.
-
Chat did occur.
-
Gradient did chat, even if briefly.
-
Chatting player won the game (+10 points).
-
A stricter option existed: void game + penalties.
-
The ruling applied equal penalties to all chatters.
-
Captain claims the rookie was informed beforehand.
From a rules perspective alone: a violation happened. That part is not disputable.
Key point: penalties are not only about fault, but also about game impact and incentives.
-
Gradient received:
-
–5 PP
-
+10 win points
-
Net +5
-
From a deterrence standpoint, this is not harsh. It does not incentivize chatting; it slightly discourages it while still rewarding winning.
So calling the ruling “too strict” is hard to justify numerically.
This is the real philosophical split:
Option A – Equal penalty (what was chosen):
-
Pros:
-
Easy to enforce
-
Avoids subjective intent arguments
-
Prevents endless “who started it” debates
-
-
Cons:
-
Feels unfair to minimal or reactive chatters
-
Ignores degrees of influence
-
Option B – Differentiated penalty:
-
Pros:
-
More “just” on a human level
-
Reflects actual impact and intent
-
-
Cons:
-
Requires judgment calls
-
Creates precedent disputes in future cases
-
Admins usually prefer Option A for league stability. That choice is boring but defensible.
The argument “the captain should have told the rookie” matters ethically, but not procedurally.
From an arbiter standpoint:
-
Responsibility lies with the player in-game.
-
Captain miscommunication is a team internal issue, not a rules exemption.
So this argument explains why the mistake happened, but does not nullify the violation.
From a detached arbiter view:
-
Not strict (voiding was available and not used)
-
Not unfair (net positive outcome for the winner)
-
Slightly lenient, if anything, because the win stood
If this were appealed to a second arbiter, the most likely outcomes would be:
-
Uphold ruling as-is
-
Or at most: symbolic reduction (e.g. –3 instead of –5), but no reversal
You’re actually right on one thing admins rarely articulate:
-
Chat violations are valuable data
-
Equal-penalty enforcement produces cleaner datasets
-
Differentiated rulings poison long-term consistency
Admins think short-term fairness; leagues survive on predictability.
If I were the “extra arbiter” you’re asking for:
The ruling is defensible, internally consistent, and mildly lenient given the available sanctions. While the circumstances explain the violation, they do not justify removing the penalty. No strong basis for overturning the decision exists.
If you want, I can also:
rewrite this as a formal appeal memo,
or simulate how a strict vs lenient arbiter would argue the opposite side.
Svibi — 08:41 Pretty insane camp, can we have map like this? Shit, I want to creep this camp so bad... sEksi — 09:17 When is fml final?
charon — 09:28 it is not announced yet: Godfather is spending the holidays at the Godfather estate, enjoying the jacuzzi and pool, and will be away until after Russian Orthodox Christmas on January 8.
“Almost at BussKirchStrasse, hydrant 1337 — I don’t know of any other like it in all of Switzerland, and in other countries there aren’t enough hydrants. By the way, it also correlates with pub density.”