Originally Posted by Winasorb
So wait you're saying that if 1 bad word slips out aimed at the most blatant troll in existence... once in a millennium, 1 game between hundreds, you can get banned? Get real kid, stop trying to justify something you can't. Not to mention there's a chat filter for a reason. (Yes, the code says a chat filter is no reason to curse, but 1 bad word aimed at a troll in over hundreds of games is no reason for suspension, none whatsoever and nobody can deny it otherwise everyone would be banned for just saying 1 bad word so watch out)
Inductive hyperbole - Logical fallacy where a conclusion is worded much more strongly than the argument gives evidence for.
1. We're not talking about 1 word slipped once every 1,000 years, or even slipped at all. You're trying to overplay a sense of innocence by creating he false notion that not only do we have any sense of frequency, but that it has a larger effect at all.
2. Do not underplay what he said. Do not do that. He didn't just drop a brick on his foot and shout "****!". This wasn't a kneejerk interjection, and he didn't pick a simple negative word like "jerk" or "*******". We're talking about of the most stained pejoratives in the English language, a word with a very serious and heavy history behind it that should never be treated so lightly and frivolously. You want to call someone who disagrees with you "kid", but I assure you only the childishly ignorant would be so distant as to not feel the impact of his word choice.
3. Do not overplay the fact that he is responding to a troll. This is a factor to be sure, and it is likely to give some leeway to his actions. To a point. Not to this point. You're not wrong in this being a factor, but you greatly over weigh it's impact and under weigh his decision.
In relation to point 1, people do not make it to the Tribunal for a single game. They also do not usually receive bans, even temp ones, on their first offense. He was right to be punished for that game, and the severity of his punishment is in relation to how often he's been in the Tribunal. So once again, no, we're not judging by a once in many human lifetimes and his grandchildren are paying for it kind of scenario.
The rest of his attitude might make a reconsideration before punishment, but don't try to even pretend it's so demure and clear that "none whatsoever and nobody can deny it". That he should be considered for pardon at all is a very generous gesture, it is definitely not the status quo.