Penalty rules and guideline

[olmania]

by lesossies » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:04 am

The basis of the FC will be "team fl" rules and penalty-guideline.

Can we know more about that please ?

In general, about the decision process, the warning system, the penalty ''grid'' and the way sanctions are chosen.

[team fl]

by lesossies » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:04 am

The basis of the FC will be "team fl" rules and penalty-guideline.

Can we know more about that please ?

In general, about the decision process, the warning system, the penalty ''grid'' and the way sanctions are chosen.

My answer: no. My advice to the FPC members: no. My advice to leso or Buhmann. No.

[olmania]

Why ?

[team fl]

Why ?

The question is the opposite: what good reason should they have to do it? Besides silencing you...

[olmania]

Why ?

The question is the opposite: what good reason should they have to do it? Besides silencing you...

Seems that you refuse to answer my questions ...

Anyway,

Transparence and communication are important.
It helps people to understand why decisions are taken that way, or this way.
It helps people to know when fines, warnings and bans are used or not, and to which level.
It helps people to see that there are true rules to protect them, protect the game and its fun.
It helps people to understand what is the mentality of the game, by the way acts and behaviors are sanctionned.
It helps people to trust FPK. FPK becomes legitimate if they have nothing to hide.
It helps people to not think of FPK members as not honest players abusing of their power, protecting each other or their friends.


So, again : Why should it stay hidden, obscur and confidential ?




Ps :

Besides silencing you...

It seems that you and some others take it too personal.
I am maybe the one talking about it loud, but believe me, I am not the only one a bit shocked by this lack of transparence and its consequences.

[team fl]

My answer: Because its none of your business.

Edith tells me that the long answer follows tomorrow.

[Robyklebt]

Typical RKL tactic to distract the attention from a topic to another ...
And for info, only you still think about that TdF thing.

Once again, you claim to know why I do something.
And once again then you claim to know what everybody else is thinking.

So, since you obviously think you already know everything, why not just tell "the people" you so care about (so much that your biggest hobby seems to be to harass and mob all designers in their fantasy threads, but ok, another topic) what the deal here is. I mean, you have the answers (and zero credibilty, but ok, another topic again)

Transparence and communication are important.
It helps people to understand why decisions are taken that way, or this way.
It helps people to know when fines, warnings and bans are used or not, and to which level.
It helps people to see that there are true rules to protect them, protect the game and its fun.
It helps people to understand what is the mentality of the game, by the way acts and behaviors are sanctionned.
It helps people to trust FPK. FPK becomes legitimate if they have nothing to hide.
It helps people to not think of FPK members as not honest players abusing of their power, protecting each other or their friends.

Some of the questions might even be legitimate, to bad your reasons for asking them aren't. It's just OL. Revenge. Inabilty to accept that you lost the TdF and then didn't manage to get me banned for this offence. Inability to accept that in the general view "OL's fun" isn't more important than anybody else's fun. (which you enjoy taking away) Inability to self reflect. Inability to discuss (see your winter proposal, which thanks to your refusal to engage in productive discussion destroyed every chance of improvement in the winter calendar)

And btw, instead of asking thousands of leading questions, work with innuendo (the last one in the quote above is a gem...) just simply STATE outright what you want to say.

Or just let it go, if you really have nothing productive to say.

[Hunsrueck]

I think with the new FPC was already much more transparency pure than before.
Since no one has complained. Penalties were imposed internally and the topic was done.
Now the penalties for each are published and the topics usually done quickly.
I think this is a step in the right direction.
However, certain things should still be handled internally, this right should be the FPC concede.

[olmania]

I answer you, but after you saw it, would be nice to delete your post and my answer as it's totally out of the thread.

Once again, you claim to know why I do something.
And once again then you claim to know what everybody else is thinking.

Isn't you always claiming you know what I think and what I do ?
I noticed you are always coming to react on forum when I say something, to bash me or to turn the topic to something else. I don't claim I read your mind or whatsoever.

I could say you like playing with me, always trying to push me to the limit and so on ... but I can't know it, so I don't tell it, because I am not reading your minds.

(so much that your biggest hobby seems to be to harass and mob all designers in their fantasy threads, but ok, another topic)

Exaggerated and wrong anyway.
I could say your biggest hobby is to harass me and annoy me every time you can, probably exaggeration and wrong.

to bad your reasons for asking them aren't. It's just OL. Revenge.

Remember what I was saying :
''Isn't you always claiming you know what I think and what I do ?''

I used example I know (your FPK case), but my main point is to ask more transparence not to take any revenge in anything, only in order to improve the FPK, its understanding and its credibility. I am not taking so much time in asking so many things to FPK and leso only to take revenge that only you think that I want.

Inabilty to accept that you lost the TdF and then didn't manage to get me banned for this offence.

Don't you have a problem ? It's about hundred times I told you I did not loose TdF and don't give a shit about that result that is already 6 months ago. Result of that race an offence ? I wrote already hundred times that no, I don't care. Offence was the harrassment I suffered for weeks.

Inability to accept that in the general view "OL's fun" isn't more important than anybody else's fun.

Where is the fun in harassing and being harassed ?

Inability to self reflect.

Inability to discuss (see your winter proposal, which thanks to your refusal to engage in productive discussion destroyed every chance of improvement in the winter calendar)

Just noticing : ''Typical RKL tactic to distract the attention from a topic to another ...''
We already talked about that ages and you have the need to bring it back on the table with no reason when it makes no sense at all ?

And btw, instead of asking thousands of leading questions, work with innuendo (the last one in the quote above is a gem...) just simply STATE outright what you want to say.

It seems you did not even read my first post up here.

Or just let it go, if you really have nothing productive to say.

Thanks for making me laugh at the end of your post.


Please RKL, when you are done reading my answer, erase this post and yours earlier as they are just giving less readability to the actual topic of this thread.

[olmania]

I think with the new FPC was already much more transparency pure than before.
Since no one has complained. Penalties were imposed internally and the topic was done.
Now the penalties for each are published and the topics usually done quickly.
I think this is a step in the right direction.

All right, good if things are more transparent than before. It's good to see penalties published in thread and most of the time quickly set.
But, don't you think that more transparency would help your action to be understood, accepted, (and supported) ?

However, certain things should still be handled internally, this right should be the FPC concede.

What do you mean here ?

[team fl]

Before I start, I want to make once thing crystal clear:

Ps :

Besides silencing you...

It seems that you and some others take it too personal.
I am maybe the one talking about it loud, but believe me, I am not the only one a bit shocked by this lack of transparence and its consequences.

It does not seem that way and it isn't. But please could you tell us, what your intention is to follow this topic with such stubbornness?
And does it stay hidden, obscure and confidential who the others are? Could you tell us who it is or at least give us a number instead of just giving a hint and indicating something? The only one I see is you. This is bad style, nothing else. I am sure they did not vote for you to take their case. If they want, they should show up here and tell their case. It’s not like they will be banned for it… *hint*.-

And finally here my long answer. Remember that this reflects my opinion and that I am not a full member of the FPC. I don't know leso's or Buhmann's opinion about that.

Transparence and communication are important.
It helps people to understand why decisions are taken that way, or this way.
It helps people to know when fines, warnings and bans are used or not, and to which level.
It helps people to see that there are true rules to protect them, protect the game and its fun.
It helps people to understand what is the mentality of the game, by the way acts and behav-iors are sanctionned.
It helps people to trust FPK. FPK becomes legitimate if they have nothing to hide.
It helps people to not think of FPK members as not honest players abusing of their power, protecting each other or their friends.

This are certainly points that sound very nice (and a bit pathetic and naive). These points should be true for the rules of the game, the rules to play the game, if only for the reason that the game is fair and gives the same chances to each user that spends the same amount of money.

Of course certain things about the FP part should be transparent too. But in my opinion, this does not work for the decision making in a particular case in the FPC. I even go further and think that the whole FP part should not be public in any way. I explain you my view:

The main goal in the FP section should be that players behave the way the game owner wants them to behave and to take measures when it’s not the case, finally to change the behaviour in the way they want. Very simplified you have:
- an unwanted behaviour;
- a correcting measure; and
- a result/outcome.

The goal for the game owners has to be the correct outcome regarding their needs.

The whole process of this is a triangle relationship between:
- the body taking measures;
- the user/group that showed the unwanted behaviour; and
- the user/group that is affected by it.

In this relationship the communication is very important. In this relationship, people should understand why the decision is taken. Either for one of those reasons:
- the user/group that showed the unwanted behaviour has to understand what’s wanted and what’s not. It has to understand that there are penalties/bans to sanction such behaviour.
- the user/group that is affected by it has to know that it’s taken care of it.
- The body taking measures has to have the best basis possible on which it can make a decision.

So, communication and transparency is needed but on a different amount on different levels. Yes, the public has to know that there is a body taking measures. Yes, the public needs to know that there are measures . Yes, the public needs to know in a certain extent how the process works FOR THEM, if they are affected, either because victim or offender and what rights do you have in that process.

But, 1.) no, the public must not know the whole decision process of the FPC, simply because that would lead to never ending discussions and would prevent the FPC form working effi-ciently. This is also not possible from an administrative point of view. And 2.) no, the public must not know the detailed catalogue for fines, bans, etc., simply because then, cases would be compared, like you do it, even if the basis for the decision might be completely different form your assumptions. Additionally there is the risk of abuse of this knowledge. Sounds weird? Well it isn't at all. Have seen that many times as a Gamemaster of a big browser game. And of course, 2.) is linked with 1.).

Then there is another question: What is the added value for a third party or the public to get the information about a particular case or about the penalty catalogue? Again very simplified, there is very few compared with the possible misuse of it. The only advantages in my opinion you add are words like legitimacy and corruption/credibility. But, again on anther level: The FPC’s work has to be mainly legitimate and credible for leso and Buhmann. If power is abused, they have to interfer.

Even more important than transparency, legitimacy etc. are the two following words: commensurability and effectiveness. And then there is the only, the final reason: This is a browser game you joined freely under certain conditions made by the owner of it. The FP decisions are made be these owners finally. If you don't like them or you feel that it's not fair, do some plain talking or leave. But don't beat around the bush, making everyone crazy with your accusations and play Robin Hood with making a scapegoat out of the FPC and prevent them from being, exactly, effective. Your measures to do so might look honorable. But the pure volume of your actions tells me something different. And in my opinion, the reason for this is the current amount of transparency the gives users the munition for attacking the FPC.

Begin with some trust. Even if it's in advance. Trust them. Trust Buhmann and leso. But please don't come up with theoretical bullshit about transparency and communication. The FPC is not here to help people. The FPC is here to help leso and Buhmann. Don't forget that. Anyway, I hope you get the PICTURE and won't defile every word I've written.

Finally, a question for you, you may answer or not: Do you think the FPC members are not honest players? Do you think they misuse their power and help friends? And if yes, please explain why.

[flockmastoR]

Finally, a question for you, you may answer or not: Do you think the FPC members are not honest players? Do you think they misuse their power and help friends? And if yes, please explain why.

ok we came to the point where I can tell you its FL's point of view that is naive now. You really think that every player is treated the same way? I don't want to blame any member of the FPK (who also may act different with different players, we are all human) but its the game developers who really practice that. There are managers that are too important for the game to be punished the way they would deserve. But as FL already said, the FPK is there for buhmann and lesso, so they can do what they like and we have to accept it, but don't tell us transperacy is not needed or would only lead to useless discussions. Lacking transparecy is also hiding the managers that are, as we call it in Austria "gleicher als gleich".

[team fl]

Finally, a question for you, you may answer or not: Do you think the FPC members are not honest players? Do you think they misuse their power and help friends? And if yes, please explain why.

ok we came to the point where I can tell you its FL's point of view that is naive now. You really think that every player is treated the same way? I don't want to blame any member of the FPK (who also may act different with different players, we are all human) but its the game developers who really practice that. There are managers that are too important for the game to be punished the way they would deserve. But as FL already said, the FPK is there for buhmann and lesso, so they can do what they like and we have to accept it, but don't tell us transperacy is not needed or would only lead to useless discussions. Lacking transparecy is also hiding the managers that are, as we call it in Austria "gleicher als gleich".

I've never written that such things don't happen. In fact, I just don't know it.

Which players are you talking about btw?

[Quick]

Finally, a question for you, you may answer or not: Do you think the FPC members are not honest players? Do you think they misuse their power and help friends? And if yes, please explain why.

ok we came to the point where I can tell you its FL's point of view that is naive now. You really think that every player is treated the same way? I don't want to blame any member of the FPK (who also may act different with different players, we are all human) but its the game developers who really practice that. There are managers that are too important for the game to be punished the way they would deserve. But as FL already said, the FPK is there for buhmann and lesso, so they can do what they like and we have to accept it, but don't tell us transperacy is not needed or would only lead to useless discussions. Lacking transparecy is also hiding the managers that are, as we call it in Austria "gleicher als gleich".

I've never written that such things don't happen. In fact, I just don't know it.

Which players are you talking about btw?

Not sure who flocke meant but Roby has a history of harrassing other users over months. Unfortunately I don't remember too far back but I'm sure there were 3+ other teams who got at least the same treatment as OL. Some I can remember without much thinking(and I desperetaly hope I don't mix things up): Mangahn, Aux, Samurai, maybe Elbcoast(was he Samurais brother? not sure...) and probably even a couple more. Also we're not talking about a single "idiot" or "fuck you" but I'm sure you remember that too.

Of course, the ape always had a very good defense and often both sides provocated and insulted, however you can't argue that Roby gets a little kick out of this. I'm sure he loves it. And most of us love him because he's a great guy when you're not his target but in all neutrality: He should have gotten at least a temporary ban...at least once.

Edit: Recien was Samurais brother. Not elbcoast. So, I'm not sure if he had a feud with Elb but instead with Recien.

[Robyklebt]

Pff, I'm not a one trick pony! Manghi and SM got harassed over months, that's it. The others got different treatments! Roby-Ape-Donkey can do more than one thing!

OL: Interesting... you answer to me (I never asked for one, not even interested in one), but not to the guy who aks you questions and actually engages in the topic. Then you disappear. Interesting.
BTW I'm certainly not going to delete my post up there, and you better don't touch it either. It's kind of funny anyway that you all of the sudden care about the purity of threads. You had no problem defecating your usual "question barrage" in all kind of other threads.

[olmania]

Back now from some days away from any laptop and internet.

And does it stay hidden, obscure and confidential who the others are? Could you tell us who it is or at least give us a number instead of just giving a hint and indicating something? The only one I see is you. This is bad style, nothing else. I am sure they did not vote for you to take their case. If they want, they should show up here and tell their case. It’s not like they will be banned for it… *hint*.-

At least 2 other managers wrote something here that can give you hint on what some others than me can think.
And on my side, I heard few times ''I do not want to tell anything in forum because I ride with FPK members every day'' or ''Even if I disagree with some/many things going around, I do not want to create myself problems by saying it loud''.
At least, some like Flocke or Quick were not afraid like others that prefer to stay hidden and do not ''create problems''.
Last thing about that, what is the proportion of users reading/using the forum ? Not much, maybe not enough to have a good represatation of what's going in user's minds (hypotesis, nothing else).

But, 1.) no, the public must not know the whole decision process of the FPC, simply because that would lead to never ending discussions and would prevent the FPC form working effi-ciently. This is also not possible from an administrative point of view.

Public should not know the whole decision, you mean then that if they know it it leads to never endings discussions ? Right ?
But not knowing it is even worse, public doubt the fairness of the whole decision process of the FPC, public has no clue about that process and can imagine things they want, public will point out things that seems irregular to them because of not knowing the decision process that is existing, and so on ...
At the opposite, if you have a clear guide of the decision process, that explains how the things work inside the FPC and shows the way decisions are made, then the public accepts it by playing the game (signing-up to a race f.e or even to the game), then as it's clearly written, explained and accepted it's impossible to contest it (unless a reform is decided).

And 2.) no, the public must not know the detailed catalogue for fines, bans, etc., simply because then, cases would be compared, like you do it, even if the basis for the decision might be completely different form your assumptions. Additionally there is the risk of abuse of this knowledge. Sounds weird? Well it isn't at all. Have seen that many times as a Gamemaster of a big browser game.

Same reflexion here, knowing it and agreeing with it would help to accept the penalties when they come.
Not knowing them add confusion and sometimes the feeling of unfairness and being abandonned by the game.
Can you develop concerning the risk of abuse ? Isn't any chance to find a way to limit/erase that risk of abuse ?

The only advantages in my opinion you add are words like legitimacy and corruption/credibility. But, again on anther level: The FPC’s work has to be mainly legitimate and credible for leso and Buhmann. If power is abused, they have to interfer.

Of course they have to interfer of power is abused, and I am sure they would. Additionnal question : do they really have time to check that kind of things when you see all the rest they have to do with the limited time they have for the game ?

The point here would be to have a FPK that is legitimate and more transparent, so that leso and Buhmann do not really have to worry about it. Rules are clearly explained, penalties and decision process is public, so there is no discussion about abuse or not, about legitimity or not. If rules and guidelines exist, FPK applies them, if these are public, then Leso and Buhmann do not need to spend their time on checking every FPK case as they would know that in 98% of cases FPK just applied what is public, and if something was done wrong by FPK, public notices it fast and problem is easy/fast to solve.

This is a browser game you joined freely under certain conditions made by the owner of it. The FP decisions are made be these owners finally.

I am aware of that.
But nothing tells that owner of a game never changes is mind and never evolve/improve on anything he set up earlier in time !
That's why I think that bringing that up today might help to a change concerning the FPC.

I will not comment the personnal attacks and judgements you make on me down after the last quote (and also in the first lines of your answer), because that's totally out of the topic. That's just very poor and disappointing that you can't write such post without using personnal attacks and off-topic judgement.

Trust them. Trust Buhmann and leso.

I trust them. I only ask them to think again of the current system and the benefits we could get of some changes. Firstly, I ask them to spend some time reading all of this.

The FPC is not here to help people. The FPC is here to help leso and Buhmann.

I disagree on that point. FPC is here to help both owners of the game and users of the game.

Do you think the FPC members are not honest players? Do you think they misuse their power and help friends?

I think they are honest. But sometimes I can doubts seeing some decisions that are made, and I think it's normal with such system, and I am not the only one having such doubts time to time. I just want proofs of their honesty, and I ask to be fully convinced of it by making the FPK more transparent.
If you keep thinking that thread and previous questions I asked for weeks is a personnal attack vs one or some of the FPK member, it's very sad.

To finish I'd say that I see your point and can understand your view and opinion of the thing.
I only have a different one.

Merry Christmas !

[NoPikouze]

I trust them. I only ask them to think again of the current system and the benefits we could get of some changes. Firstly, I ask them to spend some time reading all of this.

No, really, dont ask them to do that... It's an utter waste of time.

[team fl]

Thanks for the answer, OL, although I get the impression that you left out some important thoughts of my posting. Nevertheless, I haven't read a valid argument to make me rethink my position. To stand it, I will divide my post into the most important points in my opinion:

1.) The Robyklebt thing

Well, Quick and flocke were not to shy to answer my question about the teams that may have been treated with favour. And it seems to me that all comes done to one: Robyklebt. No other team has bee mentioned. Not by you or by any others. When the discsussion is about this topic, it's always Robyklebt. So can we agree that some teams here think that Robyklebt has been favoured in fairplay cases over other teams, no matter the particular case. If it's true or not, I don't dare to judge. Most important thing: So far, no other team seems to have gotten this (assumed) treatment, means, the FC seems to work quite well in this case, besides the fact that the final decision is made by Buhmann and/or leso anyway.

2.) Transparency of rules and processes, etc.

You didn't get my point, otherwise I don't understand your question:

Public should not know the whole decision, you mean then that if they know it it leads to never endings discussions ? Right ?

I did not right such thing and did not imply that. Of course the public may know the "whole decision". But it seems to me that you understand somthing different by that than I do. And it's not black and white. And it's not only about neverending discussions.

My plead has been that a certain amount of transparency is needed. I stated that very explicitly. But for the FC to work efficiently (not the same as effectively), it needs also a certain amount of freedom, means non-public work. I also explained this in detail in my other post.

My arguing is based on my experience in the work with such things. Yours seem to be highly theoretical and with the assumption that the current system is bad. At least the last point I cannot support. So I stick to my view in this point, also regarding the publishing of penalty guidelines.

3.) To your questions about making the FPK "corrupt-proof":

Can you develop concerning the risk of abuse ? Isn't any chance to find a way to limit/erase that risk of abuse ?

Of course they have to interfer of power is abused, and I am sure they would. Additionnal question : do they really have time to check that kind of things when you see all the rest they have to do with the limited time they have for the game ?

If they don't have time to do this, then I guess the whole Fairplay stuff is obsolet anyway. There are not that many teams doing things for the FC. And there are also the other fairplay members. Hard to have an all corrupt team. It's also a cost-benefit-analysis. How complicated can the FC system be to make it perfectly safe? Anyway, I also doubt that your suggestions would keep a "corrupt" member from doing "corrupt" things.

Anyway, why dou you always imply that the current FPK is not legitimate? This thinking is completely outside of everthing concerning this topic. That would mean that the FPK is not in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. I am sure it is.

4.) Who should the FPK help?

Could you provide more detail about your thoughts about that?

But I have to say that of course the FPK helps the users too, indirectly. Because with their work FOR Buhmann and leso, they make the game better, help them in fairplay cases, help the game to be more enjoyable, which, in the end, is also an advantage for the common user. Thus, they also help the users. But then again, that's not what their work is here in the first place. Hope you see that too.

5.) Trust in the FPK

I trust them. I only ask them to think again of the current system and the benefits we could get of some changes. Firstly, I ask them to spend some time reading all of this.

Hey, you trust Buhmann and leso, so what's the whole point?

Anyway, what kind of benefits would that be you hope to get?

Another quote:

I think they are honest. But sometimes I can doubts seeing some decisions that are made, and I think it's normal with such system, and I am not the only one having such doubts time to time. I just want proofs of their honesty, and I ask to be fully convinced of it by making the FPK more transparent.

So, you think they are honest. Good, same thing like above with Buhmann and leso. Nice to hear. But you doubt what? Why do you doubt at all? Because you are a concerned user? Go and join the FPK then! I am sure they need every help they can get.

But in the end, you just want all this because of your selfish reasons, in my opinion. And in my view it is all just because your case with Robyklebt. That's what it is all about, as far as I see it. Or at least it seems to be the starting point.

6.) And finally:

I will not comment the personnal attacks and judgements you make on me down after the last quote (and also in the first lines of your answer), because that's totally out of the topic. That's just very poor and disappointing that you can't write such post without using personnal attacks and off-topic judgement.

If you read correctly you would see that I don't attack you as a person but your behaviour. That's different. I would have been happy if you commented exactly this section. I also think your posse against the FPK is poor. So you think my comment about your behaviour is poor and you think it's dissappointing (maybe that would be good for you to indicate, because you mention it as a universal truth with writing "it is"), but it's not off-topic at all. It concernes exactly the topic we're writing about an the content of your postings in this thread. I think it's legitimate (!) to give a final personal opinion about that, of course without being insulting. That has not been my intention. And if you're not able to take that opinion, well, then maybe I also see your point in the whole FPK think in the context of the Robyklebt case... I don't know if that is a good thing and if a fairplay reform is needed for fixing that.

[flockmastoR]

Just responding to point 1)

Don't know if there are others but not impossible but there are not many lets say "important" people for the game and I cannot remember any other of them to behave just a bit like Robyklebt in one of his "vendetta" so possible it's just Robyklebt who gets favored from buhmann in the way of fair play penalties.
And to be clear, this is not wild accusation. I was in the FPK at the time this happened. Dont really know which of the cases it was (its some time ago) but the FPK demanded a fine and buhmann sentenced a ridicilously low fine that he explained with Robyklebt beeing too important for the game.

[team fl]

Just responding to point 1)

Don't know if there are others but not impossible but there are not many lets say "important" people for the game and I cannot remember any other of them to behave just a bit like Robyklebt in one of his "vendetta" so possible it's just Robyklebt who gets favored from buhmann in the way of fair play penalties.
And to be clear, this is not wild accusation. I was in the FPK at the time this happened. Dont really know which of the cases it was (its some time ago) but the FPK demanded a fine and buhmann sentenced a ridicilously low fine that he explained with Robyklebt beeing too important for the game.

Thanks for that explanation. The question then is if more transparency (public access to penalty guideline and FPK decision making) would have had a different outcome. I guess not. Maybe it would be intersting what you think about that as an involved person?

Another question that arises is, how a player gets too important to receive the appropriate treatment by the FPK and the game's owners... But that's another topic for another thread.

[flockmastoR]

Just responding to point 1)

Don't know if there are others but not impossible but there are not many lets say "important" people for the game and I cannot remember any other of them to behave just a bit like Robyklebt in one of his "vendetta" so possible it's just Robyklebt who gets favored from buhmann in the way of fair play penalties.
And to be clear, this is not wild accusation. I was in the FPK at the time this happened. Dont really know which of the cases it was (its some time ago) but the FPK demanded a fine and buhmann sentenced a ridicilously low fine that he explained with Robyklebt beeing too important for the game.

Thanks for that explanation. The question then is if more transparency (public access to penalty guideline and FPK decision making) would have had a different outcome. I guess not. Maybe it would be intersting what you think about that as an involved person?

Another question that arises is, how a player gets too important to receive the appropriate treatment by the FPK and the game's owners... But that's another topic for another thread.

As I already mentiomed (or think I did), it won't have a different outcome but players that know that it is not always "fair".

[Robyklebt]

To help with Flockes memory to remember in which case he wanted a higher fine.

OL case was in September. Got 300.000 fine
After that the SM case on which I refuse to comment for the stupidity of the closure of the thread, completely moronic decision, both the decision of the FPK and the closure of the thread. Idea by FL of course, hehe. OK, now commented on the result too....
The fine and case before that was years ago, Samurais, went on from the Tour until december 2011. Got one million, which was rather too high than too low.
So if you were in the FPK for the OL/SM case, ok ok, but if you were there earlier, for the Samurais case.... then I dont see how much you wanted to fine me

[team fl]

Just responding to point 1)

Don't know if there are others but not impossible but there are not many lets say "important" people for the game and I cannot remember any other of them to behave just a bit like Robyklebt in one of his "vendetta" so possible it's just Robyklebt who gets favored from buhmann in the way of fair play penalties.
And to be clear, this is not wild accusation. I was in the FPK at the time this happened. Dont really know which of the cases it was (its some time ago) but the FPK demanded a fine and buhmann sentenced a ridicilously low fine that he explained with Robyklebt beeing too important for the game.

Thanks for that explanation. The question then is if more transparency (public access to penalty guideline and FPK decision making) would have had a different outcome. I guess not. Maybe it would be intersting what you think about that as an involved person?

Another question that arises is, how a player gets too important to receive the appropriate treatment by the FPK and the game's owners... But that's another topic for another thread.

As I already mentiomed (or think I did), it won't have a different outcome but players that know that it is not always "fair".

Well, now they know. Other teams have already guessed it or strongly implied it in their postings

I still think that the current system for the FPK works well, in general. Maybe Buhmann and/or leso could tell us their opinion about this topic or give a short explanation for such a procedure as you mentioned.

Nevertheless, my conclusion is still that the FPK needs some private room to work in, as explain in detail in my two previous posts, where I questioned OL's suggestion and intention.

Edith is happy about Mr. Klebt's reaction (the fact that he reacted).

[team fl]

After that the SM case on which I refuse to comment for the stupidity of the closure of the thread, completely moronic decision, both the decision of the FPK and the closure of the thread. Idea by FL of course, hehe. OK, now commented on the result too....

Ehemm... to help with your memory, I quote myself from that thread:

Anyway, the FC will take care also of this case. Until then, please do not use this thread to discuss other cases or other personal issues, thanks. I won't hesitate to delete stuff that is not related to the SM vs. Big Donkey issue, while usual Spam will be treated as entertainment, if it's not too much .

Sooo, neither did I suggest to close the thread nor did I in any way advise the FPK about the decision.

[flockmastoR]

To help with Flockes memory to remember in which case he wanted a higher fine.

OL case was in September. Got 300.000 fine
After that the SM case on which I refuse to comment for the stupidity of the closure of the thread, completely moronic decision, both the decision of the FPK and the closure of the thread. Idea by FL of course, hehe. OK, now commented on the result too....
The fine and case before that was years ago, Samurais, went on from the Tour until december 2011. Got one million, which was rather too high than too low.
So if you were in the FPK for the OL/SM case, ok ok, but if you were there earlier, for the Samurais case.... then I dont see how much you wanted to fine me

It was years ago, not really sure if it was the samurais case, possible but not sure. And the discussion was not about how much fictive money you lose but about thinking of a temporary ban. (Dont nail me, I am really not 100% sure) This whole situation was years ago and it was at that time not the first case of yours. Now we have 2015 and still annualy a big Roby case. I am just telling that another person with such a record won't be accepted to play the game further on. We now temporarly ban teams with same IPs before they re even able to respond but we cannot just lock Robyklebts team for a week or two?