Change to the Official 888PL Rules

[Garth Kay]

Don't want to harp on benny the cunt but perhaps I could have been more clearer in my OP and avoided confusion. I did say at the end of the OP:

The 888PL should not be able to arbitrarily make up rules when someone raises an issue with them and then talk about "fairness". When I register I have every intention to return so long as time and personal circumstances dictate and if they don't and I can't make it, I don't see why we should change rules that have been in place for years and unregister me.

So you posted a wall of text outlining your issue and the scenario you faced, mentioned my Operational Supervisor and his comments several time only for this last small paragraph to be the point of contention?

And you wonder why people get confused?

Or why Adam is furious right now?

Or why several players are now calling for your immediate suspension?

Yes mate - controversy follows you everywhere, ever considered why that might be?

[trishan]

FWIW I just sent an email to Adam apologising for anything that has been said by myself which may reflect negatively on him. He acted professionally in all my correspondence with him and if I have upset him, I do apologise.

I am not sure why players would call for my suspension given I have quite clearly stated that I intend to register and play games. If players have an issue with me they are more than welcome to send me a PM or email.

[Garth Kay]

I am not sure why players would call for my suspension given I have quite clearly stated that I intend to register and play games. If players have an issue with me they are more than welcome to send me a PM or email.

As I have instructed these players to do so.

[thelaw88]

Have read all the posts, agree with the majority (sorry Trishan) and just wanted to add something on the 'legal' argument as I'm also just about to finish law school and cannot help but add my 2 cents:

The courts quite often make decisions that seem to go against what the legislation actually states, in order to punish someone that technically has worked themselves around the rules, in order to avoid public backlash or to avoid a decision which is unethical/immoral - this is what is called, a decision based on 'public policy' grounds.

I see this as a similar situation, and you would obviously be aware of such decisions in your time at law school as well. There are times where a case was correctly argued according to the law, but for the greater good (or something along those lines) the decision went against them.

Further, legislation is quite often introduced to operate retrospectively, usually from when the press release discussing the possible introduction of the new law (hence, why particular attention is paid in practice to press releases concerning new laws in various areas) and normally has justified reasons for doing so (i.e. major loophole that needs to be fixed).

Anyway, I don't see why this turned into such a great debate but can understand why Trishan wanted to argue the point - law school has that effect, unfortunately sometimes your view (however strong you might see it) does not conform with public opinion.

[thelaw88]

Sorry, this thread has been cancelled.
Everyone will receive $18

This made me

[bennymacca]

even in the absense of legislation, there was probably a precedent set at some point in the past, so trishan could be argued against on common law grounds.

(hope that is lawyerish enough for you both feel free to tell me im wrong )

[trishan]

Have read all the posts, agree with the majority (sorry Trishan) and just wanted to add something on the 'legal' argument as I'm also just about to finish law school and cannot help but add my 2 cents:

The courts quite often make decisions that seem to go against what the legislation actually states, in order to punish someone that technically has worked themselves around the rules, in order to avoid public backlash or to avoid a decision which is unethical/immoral - this is what is called, a decision based on 'public policy' grounds.

I see this as a similar situation, and you would obviously be aware of such decisions in your time at law school as well. There are times where a case was correctly argued according to the law, but for the greater good (or something along those lines) the decision went against them.

Further, legislation is quite often introduced to operate retrospectively, usually from when the press release discussing the possible introduction of the new law (hence, why particular attention is paid in practice to press releases concerning new laws in various areas) and normally has justified reasons for doing so (i.e. major loophole that needs to be fixed).

Anyway, I don't see why this turned into such a great debate but can understand why Trishan wanted to argue the point - law school has that effect, unfortunately sometimes your view (however strong you might see it) does not conform with public opinion.

Well said. I have some Kirby J in me, always dissenting and at centre of controversy.

[thelaw88]

Have read all the posts, agree with the majority (sorry Trishan) and just wanted to add something on the 'legal' argument as I'm also just about to finish law school and cannot help but add my 2 cents:

The courts quite often make decisions that seem to go against what the legislation actually states, in order to punish someone that technically has worked themselves around the rules, in order to avoid public backlash or to avoid a decision which is unethical/immoral - this is what is called, a decision based on 'public policy' grounds.

I see this as a similar situation, and you would obviously be aware of such decisions in your time at law school as well. There are times where a case was correctly argued according to the law, but for the greater good (or something along those lines) the decision went against them.

Further, legislation is quite often introduced to operate retrospectively, usually from when the press release discussing the possible introduction of the new law (hence, why particular attention is paid in practice to press releases concerning new laws in various areas) and normally has justified reasons for doing so (i.e. major loophole that needs to be fixed).

Anyway, I don't see why this turned into such a great debate but can understand why Trishan wanted to argue the point - law school has that effect, unfortunately sometimes your view (however strong you might see it) does not conform with public opinion.

Well said. I have some Kirby J in me, always dissenting and at centre of controversy.

Haha - right, at least he'll be remembered for all his ramblings - this league will surely remember you too at this rate it seems

[trishan]

even in the absense of legislation, there was probably a precedent set at some point in the past, so trishan could be argued against on common law grounds.

(hope that is lawyerish enough for you both feel free to tell me im wrong )

Sounds about right benny the cunt. I think the case might have been:
Joseph Haschem, Tony Haschem, Mabo & Ors v Full House Group Pty Ltd [2009]

[bennymacca]