Rule question

Where is the established penalty posted for this error or deliberate violation of the rules (since we have no way of knowing intention)?

Where is the established penalty posted for this error or deliberate violation of the rules (since we have no way of knowing intention)?

Considering you're in the tournament, I'm surprised you didn't see it. Gbrookes posted it in the forum thread tournament rules page:

Ballpark Requirement

- A player must not re-use a ballpark. For example, if he used Fenway in Event 1, he may not use Fenway in events 2 or 3, nor may he use Fenway in the playoff round.
- There can be more than 1 player using the same ballpark in the same event and/or league. For example, player X and player Y may both use Fenway in event 1 league 1. In theory, the same ballpark could be used by all 12 teams in any league or event. The prohibition relates to the same player using the same ballpark. ***EXCEPTION*** - Event 5 will have a live ballpark draft on these boards, as well as a live 1 round player draft. The draft order is not serpentine, and will be based on the number of points earned in event 1. So event 1 serves an extra purpose this year, by establishing the draft order for event 5. Event 5 (only) will also have players assigned to particular leagues, based on event 1 points earned. Please note that this exception means that there will be unique ballparks for each league in event 5 - it still doesn't mean that any player can re-use a park previously used by him in a prior league.
- A player who is acting as a "filler" for a particular event and league should also refrain from using that ballpark in any other event or league. So, a player acting as a filler should avoid using a ballpark that he may want to use for an active team in a separate event.
- If a player re-uses a ballpark, there will be a 20 point penalty.

This is absolutely explicit and says nothing of the error being "deliberate or accidental." You may not--deliberately or accidentally--re-use a ballpark. So, "intention" is irrelevant. However, I agree with you that you can't know the intention here. I pointed that out earlier in my argument against "commissioner's discretion," with which GBrookes agreed. Thanks for backing that up.

As you can also see, the established penalty is also absolutely clear. Nobody who re-uses a stadium and has to pay the penalty can say it wasn't.

Where is the established penalty posted for this error or deliberate violation of the rules (since we have no way of knowing intention)?

Here it is: Tourney Homepage. Scroll down and click the Rules Tab. The part about the stadiums is at the bottom.

Oops, must have posted at the same time. Anyway I agree it's every players responsibility to read and understand the rules or ask questions about that which you don't understand. We can all feel bad when an honest mistake is made and say sorry, support the player but the rules states -20 points. Best to pay attention, seems like a killer if ya get the penalty.

Thanks Jeremiah. You could have just told me, but the link is cool, too.

I know not to choose the same ballpark twice, since I read the rules before joining the tournament and determined that I could manage to not duplicate ballparks and therefore would not be subject to the penalty. Sort of like not knowing what the range of penalties are for using drugs; since I don't use, I don't commit them to memory.

Thanks Jeremiah. You could have just told me, but the link is cool, too.

I know not to choose the same ballpark twice, since I read the rules before joining the tournament and determined that I could manage to not duplicate ballparks and therefore would not be subject to the penalty. Sort of like not knowing what the range of penalties are for using drugs; since I don't use, I don't commit them to memory.

So, you had read the rules, knew there was an established penalty for re-using stadiums, and knew my assertion there was such an established penalty was correct? That means you could have easily just found the penalty yourself, Turtle. There was no need to question me on the matter and defer the resolution any further.

We have reached the resolution on the stadium re-using issue, anyway, though. Everyone should now know the rules, the penalty, and the absence of any post-violation loopholes. I'm ready to go back to the tournament once GBrookes actually implements his Event 5 ruling in the Rules Page.

I've read and understand all the posts. (You're free to claim otherwise, of course.) I think the rule should be revised in the manner I propose. I think the current rule is overly harsh given the nature of the transgression. It's like the death penalty for a moment of jaywalking.

But it's no big deal to me either way. It's only a game about a game.

I've read and understand all the posts. (You're free to claim otherwise, of course.) I think the rule should be revised in the manner I propose. I think the current rule is overly harsh given the nature of the transgression. It's like the death penalty for a moment of jaywalking.

But it's no big deal to me either way. It's only a game about a game.

It is a tough penalty, and it should be. Re-using a stadium is not the equivalent of jaywalking; it is a major infraction that would give the rule-breaker a substantial advantage over other league participants.

If there were not a substantial penalty for this, players would have no reason to not re-use stadiums. Yes, ethical players would still follow the rules. However, not all players are ethical, particularly in a contest for prizes with cash value.

It's no "big deal" to me either way, either. But, If I (or anyone else) am going to pay $100 for a contest for prizes, I expect the contest to be fair and the appropriate penalties to be levied. It is a game about a game. But it is a game about a game for prizes, which costs $80-100 to play....that's a big difference.

Thanks Jeremiah. You could have just told me, but the link is cool, too.

I know not to choose the same ballpark twice, since I read the rules before joining the tournament and determined that I could manage to not duplicate ballparks and therefore would not be subject to the penalty. Sort of like not knowing what the range of penalties are for using drugs; since I don't use, I don't commit them to memory.

So, you had read the rules, knew there was an established penalty for re-using stadiums, and knew my assertion there was such an established penalty was correct? That means you could have easily just found the penalty yourself, Turtle. There was no need to question me on the matter and defer the resolution any further.

We have reached the resolution on the stadium re-using issue, anyway, though. Everyone should now know the rules, the penalty, and the absence of any post-violation loopholes. I'm ready to go back to the tournament once GBrookes actually implements his Event 5 ruling in the Rules Page.

Yes, I could have backed out of the community forums, looked up the answer myself. I was not questioning you about the penalty, I was asking an open forum question. The forums are not about you, not all questions are to you, and if you feel when I ask a question on an open forum board that I should look it up myself, feel free to either ignore the question or tell me to look it up myself. I did not ask anyone to look it up themselves, to do the actions I chose not to do myself.

Both you and Jeremiah were kind enough to actually clip and paste or post the link; both above and beyond my expectations for the answer. But while Jeremiah's response reads like a genuine effort to assist and yours reads like an opening to take another jab. From others' comments, I conclude it isn't personal towards me and that I need to continue to work to understand others and forgive when I am offended instead of further participating in a relatively pointless discussion.

I've read and understand all the posts. (You're free to claim otherwise, of course.) I think the rule should be revised in the manner I propose. I think the current rule is overly harsh given the nature of the transgression. It's like the death penalty for a moment of jaywalking.

But it's no big deal to me either way. It's only a game about a game.

I don't think the rules should be revised for this season's event (and no, I don't remember if you proposed a change for this year or not, it isn't significant to my comment). But as a consideration for future tournaments, I think this and any other rule should be up for discussion and consideration.

My initial question asking about the penalty stemmed from another player saying he had been docked 20 points in a previous tournament for violating this rule. So I asked where it was written, because I wondered if the penalty had been made up on the fly or was an established rule. After all, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like the NFL can make up penalties as they will for domestic violence and drug use, it wouldn't be that surprising for a tournament utilizing a board game would have some flexibility.

Personally, I thought 20 points was a light penalty when you raised the topic. My thought initially was zero out the season, but allow another entry in a different league for the same event. THAT would far more resemble the death penalty for jaywalking than the 20 point penalty. I doubt 20 points (wins) is the value of changing a stadium after a draft, but if the intent is to "give back" the benefit gained plus a slap on the hands punitive measure, 20 sounds reasonable to me. I think of the advantage the player might gain from changing stadiums, which the penalty addresses, and the disadvantage the other players in the league must suffer from the wins you gained, and how they would lose out on points that might make a difference in the standings.

Ultimately, all I ask for the tournament organizers is to set the terms at the beginning and as much as possible keep them unchanged until the next off-season. Personally, the rule about stadiums made no difference about trying out the tournament this year, but for some people, it might.

Yes, I could have backed out of the community forums, looked up the answer myself. I was not questioning you about the penalty, I was asking an open forum question.

Turtle, try to avoid hollow admonishments, they reflect poorly on the user. You were not just "asking an open forum question." You were asking a question in immediate response to an assertion I made in my post. I ended one of my posts with a statement about an established penalty:

It's very simple. The rules clearly state that you can't use the same stadium twice. Those have been the rules for years. So, don't use a stadium twice, and you'll be fine. if you do do so--purposefully or accidentally--that is entirely your fault, and you should pay the established penalty. It's not SOM's or the commissioner's place to work around your violation of the rules.

You directly followed this with this question about such established penalty:

Where is the established penalty posted for this error or deliberate violation of the rules (since we have no way of knowing intention)?

So, I had every reason to assume you were addressing me with your question; "established penalty" was my phrase. That's just common sense and logic. I was also right to point out that you had no reason to ask me (or anyone else) about the established penalty. You, yourself, admitted you had already read it and knew it existed. So, you just wasted other people's time with your question, whether you explicitly asked them to look for the penalty or not.

The forums are not about you, not all questions are to you, and if you feel when I ask a question on an open forum board that I should look it up myself, feel free to either ignore the question or tell me to look it up myself. I did not ask anyone to look it up themselves, to do the actions I chose not to do myself.

As I said above, you didn't just ask a question to an open board. You directly followed my assertion there was an established penalty for re-using stadiums with a question about that penalty. Anyone who makes a statement on the forum and has that statement immediately questioned should assume the question was addressed to him...if not to others as well.

So, your yarn about the "forums not being about me" was erroneous and inappropriately personal. If you actually think I' have "made the forums about myself," and you bear some grudge against me, then PM me and express it. Don't waste the forum's time with your personal issues.

Both you and Jeremiah were kind enough to actually clip and paste or post the link; both above and beyond my expectations for the answer. But while Jeremiah's response reads like a genuine effort to assist and yours reads like an opening to take another jab. From others' comments, I conclude it isn't personal towards me and that I need to continue to work to understand others and forgive when I am offended instead of further participating in a relatively pointless discussion.

Ah, so I apparently did hurt your feelings, and I now see the source of your rancor. I didn't take a "jab" at you at all with my previous answer, and I certainly didn't mean to hurt you. My response to you was straightforward and clear, and not rude at all. If you felt it was a "jab," as you say, then show me how it was so. Don't just make unfounded accusations like those "others" holding you in their sway. I, myself, have forgiven you for your errant accusation...among other things. I don't understand you, but I have forgiven you.

And there have been pointless aspects to this discussion...such as your question about a penalty you knew already existed. However, this has been an important discussion about how the commissioner/league should respond to re-using stadiums, both before and after the onset of league play. If you truly thought this discussion was so pointless, you wouldn't be making so many responses to me and others on this thread.