Originally Posted by YueienGato
Once again, not arguing the fact that he clearly deserves to be where he is: my concern is how he arrived here.
As far as I'm concerned, there are no problems in the presentation of his 2 week bamp cases: He hangs himself clearly.
It is the in the perma that, as he is serving the 2 week bamp, that he is put forewords through the Tribunal again where data is being reused against him. As I've said, I normally do not go out on a limb here but I have never heard of a situation in which a person goes from 2 week to perma bamp BASED on recycled cases being used against him. This occuring while there is a Tribunal update, which various people have attested to with a delay in case results being pushed through.
I understand the right for a Rioter's perma bamping privilages, but I still am voicing a concern that, in this case, there needs to be some clarity as to the process of how this one case ended up as a Perma while a person is still serving his time.
I reiterate: OP is toxic, he is scum, he is not someone I'd lose sleep over BUT there are some facts, or lack therefore of, that could lead to a potentially unwelcomed precedent. It is a cold day in hell that I go out voicing some doubt over the Tribunal system, but how the process of this particular case *seems* to have occured leaves me quite chilled.
? A permaban will always recycle cases because it's based on all the previous evidence.
He ended up permabanned while he was during his 2 week ban because that seems to be the punishment from the Tribunal review whereas the permaban came after a Rioter reviewed it.
There's no glitch that caused him to become permabanned. And there wasn't anything unfair that occurred to get him banned. The only potential glitch, which I don't think occurred, was that a 2 week sentence was released before the scheduled permaban review went on.
But I don't think that occurred.
Regardless of what happened. There was no glitch or falseness that created the permaban. It resulted after the Rioter reviewed all the evidence.