Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2010 8:35:00 AM (view original):
I think the review process is the problem. Since you and harthj are here, you're my examples. Both of you win 50 games. Win requirement is 55 but with a review. harthj has rambled on about how he's gonna kick everyone's *** in S3 once he gets his players in place. He's generally disliked for his "outgoing" personality. You've never made a post in the WC other than to say "This team has problems. I'm doing my best."
Both of you appeal. harthj has annoyed everyone for 85 days. He gets an 0-5. You haven't really bothered anyone and you're new to HBD. You get 4-1. You return, we demand that harthj is removed. The difference in actual game play? None. You both lost 112. The difference in how you're veiwed? Huge. Harthj=pain in the ***, you=quiet n00b.
Fair? No.
it's not so black and white, Mike. If the results of the review said that we voted this guy out because he annoyed everyone, it would be similar to your example. Your example leaves out valid reasons and considers the character judgement only. If there's valid reasons, then any character judgement/hidden agenda is beside the point. In fact, there is a list of valid reasons why he was voted out and the other was not.
The reason for the review process is to add subjectivity into the process of asking people to leave. Adding in the subjectivity & the ability to consider intent benefits the world.