LogFAQs > #929683943

guffguy89 posted...

to play devils advocate, the only thing that confuses me about this, is that I asked earlier in this contest if someone can be punished for not fulfilling a trade, and I was provided with some latin by the host which basically meant that the seller alone assumes all risk for a trade. But now it seems, many rounds later, that a person is being banned for, either intentionally or unintentionally, not fulfilling a trade. I understand there's more to this than that, but on the surface it does seem a little contradictory. I think that's where the community rule probably kicks in though. Where unethical behavior, even if not spelled out in the rules, can result in a banning.

BetrayedTangy posted...

I probably don't have much right to weigh in on this but I do feel like FBike/Burke have been pretty shady the whole contest making it look like they wanted something to go down. Plus after the incident I don't think he owned up or apologized about it.

Tangy's basically got it.

There are lots of reasons one might not fulfill a trade, and 90% of them are at the buyer's risk. Maybe your trade partner gets called into a work meeting. Maybe they just forget. Maybe you agree to a next-hour trade, and the round ends before their save is up. Maybe you have an alliance or NR but they straight-up miss the round. All that's unfortunate but understandable. But none of that is "tee hee I am going to lie about my internet being down and then not be sorry at all."

But also, FBike has kinda been an ass all contest and people have wanted him gone for a while now.

I think it's really the combination at work here. Nobody calls for FBike's head if it's just the single missed save without his general obnoxiousness at play. (I think? Feel free to prove me wrong if you want)
---

another place and time, without a great divide, and we could be flying deadly high