enchanted_elixir
Forum Legend
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2022
- Posts
- 22,494
- Reputation
- 38,369
FUOTY 2025 ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
Case Report: @Volksstaffel
Date: December 27, 2025
Adjudicator: @enchanted_elixir
Decision: ELIGIBLE
Forum Rules
looksmax.org
FUOTY Rules
looksmax.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
@Volksstaffel attempted to privately identify @MyDreamIsToBe183CM using reverse image search services. The investigation was unsuccessful and nothing was posted publicly. After initial ban and unban by moderators, Master (forum owner) imposed a 2-day temporary ban with 20% warning level.
Ruling: @Volksstaffel remains eligible for FUOTY 2025 participation.
-----
KEY FACTS
The Incident:
- @Volksstaffel obtained a photo believed to be @MyDreamIsToBe183CM
- Paid for reverse image search services
- Found no identifying information
- Nothing posted publicly
- Investigation remained private until reported
The Punishment:
- Initial ban by a moderator.
- Unbanned by moderators
- Re-banned by Master: 2 days, 20% warning level
Evidence Available:
- Both parties (@Volksstaffel, @MyDreamIsToBe183CM) admitted to incident
- Staff reviewed evidence and confirmed validity
- Multiple administrators involved in decision
- Tournament organizer was barred and does NOT have access to complete evidence
-----
APPLICABLE RULES
Forum Rule: “Dox or threaten to dox”
Established Precedent: Explicit doxxing violations = permanent bans
Tournament Rule: “No banned users unless it’s a self-ban or temporary ban spanning no more than 1 week, within reason”
-----
ANALYSIS
1. Was This an Explicit “Dox or Threaten to Dox” Violation?
Answer: No, based on the punishment assigned.
Key Logic:
```
IF explicit doxxing → permanent ban (established precedent)
@Volksstaffel → 20% warning, 2-day ban
THEREFORE → NOT classified as explicit doxxing
```
Why the punishment matters:
- Master (forum owner) had enough evidence to make an informed decision.
- Master has authority to classify violations
- Master chose 20% warning (low tier) not permanent ban
- This choice necessarily indicates the conduct was NOT treated as explicit doxxing
What actually occurred:
-
No successful doxxing (no information found)
- No public posting (investigation private)
- No threats made (no evidence of this)
- ✓ Inappropriate investigation attempt of @MyDreamIsToBe183CM (hence the warning)
2. Does the Ban Fall “Within Reason”?
Answer: Yes.
Objective Factors:
- Duration: 2 days (very short, well under 1 week)
- Severity: 20% warning (low disciplinary tier)
- Actual harm: Minimal (nothing public, nothing found)
- Forum determination: Master deemed this proportionate.
“Within Reason” Analysis:
The phrase grants discretion to evaluate whether a ban represents a minor violation (eligible) vs. serious violation (ineligible).
Supporting factors:
-----
CRITICAL REASONING
The Dispositive Factor: Deference to Forum Authority
The Problem:
Tournament organizer lacks complete information about the incident.
The Solution:
Defer to the authority who HAD complete information—Master and admin.
Why this matters:
1. Master reviewed all evidence (tournament organizer did not)
1. Master has expertise in forum rules and appropriate classifications
1. Master made a determination: 20% warning, not permanent ban
1. This determination is reliable evidence of how serious the violation was.
The Logic:
- If tournament organizer had complete info → could independently assess
- Tournament organizer lacks complete info → should trust Master’s assessment
- Master’s punishment level = 20% warning → signals minor-moderate violation
- Minor-moderate violation = qualifies for “within reason” exception
- The rule was a forum rule violation, not a tournament rule violation, thus the decision ultimately must come from the staff, not the host.
Why Not Disqualify?
Disqualification would require:
1. Overruling the staff’s determination (I am not staff or have their expertise)
1. Applying stricter standards on the interpretation of forum rules than the staff itself, the host isn’t staff so that would be inappropriate.
1. Adding unstated exceptions (rule doesn’t exclude doxxing-related offenses)
1. Making harsh call with incomplete information (choosing exclusion over inclusion)
None of these approaches are justified.
-----
PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED
Forum Punishment = Classification Evidence
When forum authority assigns punishment, that punishment level indicates how the violation was classified:
- Permanent ban = maximum severity (explicit rule violations)
- High warning % = serious violation
- Low warning % (20-40%) = minor-moderate violation
Tournament organizers should respect these classifications.
“Within Reason” Means:
Includes:
- Short temporary bans (≤1 week)
- Low-tier warning levels (10-30%)
- Bans where forum classified as minor-moderate
- Situations where actual harm was minimal
Excludes:
- Permanent bans
- Bans >1 week
- Bans where forum uses maximum severity classification
Deference Principle
When lacking complete information, tournament organizers should defer to forum authority’s determinations rather than second-guess or override them.
-----
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS
Concern: “But he ATTEMPTED to doxx someone—that’s serious!”
Response:
- Forum authority agrees it was inappropriate (hence the warning)
- But forum authority determined it wasn’t explicit doxxing-level serious (hence 20% warning, not permanent ban)
- Tournament should respect Master’s severity assessment
Concern: “What about community safety?”
Response:
- Forum authority already assessed safety risk
- Master determined 20% warning sufficient
- No evidence of ongoing risk (investigation unsuccessful, nothing posted)
- If Master believed serious safety risk → would have banned permanently
Concern: “Isn’t this being too lenient?”
Response:
- Not about leniency—about applying rules as written
- Tournament rule explicitly allows “temporary bans within reason”
- Forum’s owner treated this as minor-moderate violation.
- Tournament shouldn’t impose stricter standards than the staff itself, unless it deals within the realm of exclusively FUOTY rules, not forum rules. This incident was a forum rule violation, deference to staff is acceptable.
-----
FINAL DETERMINATION
@Volksstaffel IS ELIGIBLE for FUOTY 2025.
Primary Basis:
2-day temporary ban with 20% warning level falls within tournament exception for “temporary bans spanning no more than 1 week, within reason.”
Three-Part Test:
1.
Temporary ban (not permanent)
1. Duration ≤ 1 week (2 days < 7 days)
1. Within reason (20% warning, minimal harm, forum authority determination)
Core Reasoning:
Forum authority (Master) with complete information determined this conduct warranted 20% warning—not permanent doxxing ban. This indicates a low-level offense. This classification should be respected. The tournament rule allows temporary bans “within reason,” and this objectively qualifies.
Case Report: @Volksstaffel
Date: December 27, 2025
Adjudicator: @enchanted_elixir
Decision: ELIGIBLE
Forum Rules
Rules and FAQ
👋 Welcome to Looksmax! This is a community for men who wish to improve their looks and become more successful in life. If you are interested in: Looking better Attracting the opposite sex Becoming wealthy Gaining status Being rated Becoming the best version of yourself ...then this is the...
looksmax.org
FUOTY Rules
FUOTY 2025 Qualification Round: Official Voting & Verification Thread
👑 FUOTY 2025 - OFFICIAL QUALIFICATION ROUND 👑 🔥VOTE NOW - THE TOURNAMENT IS LIVE!🔥 Hosted by: @enchanted_elixir & @Notcel 🎶FUOTY 2025 ANTHEM🎶 Please, do not DNR this thread. It contains almost all of the answers to your questions and contains all of the rules. I recommend skimming the...
looksmax.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
@Volksstaffel attempted to privately identify @MyDreamIsToBe183CM using reverse image search services. The investigation was unsuccessful and nothing was posted publicly. After initial ban and unban by moderators, Master (forum owner) imposed a 2-day temporary ban with 20% warning level.
Ruling: @Volksstaffel remains eligible for FUOTY 2025 participation.
-----
KEY FACTS
The Incident:
- @Volksstaffel obtained a photo believed to be @MyDreamIsToBe183CM
- Paid for reverse image search services
- Found no identifying information
- Nothing posted publicly
- Investigation remained private until reported
The Punishment:
- Initial ban by a moderator.
- Unbanned by moderators
- Re-banned by Master: 2 days, 20% warning level
Evidence Available:
- Both parties (@Volksstaffel, @MyDreamIsToBe183CM) admitted to incident
- Staff reviewed evidence and confirmed validity
- Multiple administrators involved in decision
- Tournament organizer was barred and does NOT have access to complete evidence
-----
APPLICABLE RULES
Forum Rule: “Dox or threaten to dox”
Established Precedent: Explicit doxxing violations = permanent bans
Tournament Rule: “No banned users unless it’s a self-ban or temporary ban spanning no more than 1 week, within reason”
-----
ANALYSIS
1. Was This an Explicit “Dox or Threaten to Dox” Violation?
Answer: No, based on the punishment assigned.
Key Logic:
```
IF explicit doxxing → permanent ban (established precedent)
@Volksstaffel → 20% warning, 2-day ban
THEREFORE → NOT classified as explicit doxxing
```
Why the punishment matters:
- Master (forum owner) had enough evidence to make an informed decision.
- Master has authority to classify violations
- Master chose 20% warning (low tier) not permanent ban
- This choice necessarily indicates the conduct was NOT treated as explicit doxxing
What actually occurred:
-
No successful doxxing (no information found)-
No public posting (investigation private)-
No threats made (no evidence of this)- ✓ Inappropriate investigation attempt of @MyDreamIsToBe183CM (hence the warning)
2. Does the Ban Fall “Within Reason”?
Answer: Yes.
Objective Factors:
- Duration: 2 days (very short, well under 1 week)
- Severity: 20% warning (low disciplinary tier)
- Actual harm: Minimal (nothing public, nothing found)
- Forum determination: Master deemed this proportionate.
“Within Reason” Analysis:
The phrase grants discretion to evaluate whether a ban represents a minor violation (eligible) vs. serious violation (ineligible).
Supporting factors:
- Forum authority determined appropriate: Master saw complete evidence and chose this punishment level.
- Proportionate to harm: No public disclosure, no information obtained
- Consistent with rule purpose: Exception designed for minor violations; forum classified this as minor-moderate (20% warning)
- No stated exclusions: Rule doesn’t exclude doxxing-related offenses from “within reason”
- Equal treatment: Other 2-day bans for similar severity levels would qualify
-----
CRITICAL REASONING
The Dispositive Factor: Deference to Forum Authority
The Problem:
Tournament organizer lacks complete information about the incident.
The Solution:
Defer to the authority who HAD complete information—Master and admin.
Why this matters:
1. Master reviewed all evidence (tournament organizer did not)
1. Master has expertise in forum rules and appropriate classifications
1. Master made a determination: 20% warning, not permanent ban
1. This determination is reliable evidence of how serious the violation was.
The Logic:
- If tournament organizer had complete info → could independently assess
- Tournament organizer lacks complete info → should trust Master’s assessment
- Master’s punishment level = 20% warning → signals minor-moderate violation
- Minor-moderate violation = qualifies for “within reason” exception
- The rule was a forum rule violation, not a tournament rule violation, thus the decision ultimately must come from the staff, not the host.
Why Not Disqualify?
Disqualification would require:
1. Overruling the staff’s determination (I am not staff or have their expertise)
1. Applying stricter standards on the interpretation of forum rules than the staff itself, the host isn’t staff so that would be inappropriate.
1. Adding unstated exceptions (rule doesn’t exclude doxxing-related offenses)
1. Making harsh call with incomplete information (choosing exclusion over inclusion)
None of these approaches are justified.
-----
PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED
Forum Punishment = Classification Evidence
When forum authority assigns punishment, that punishment level indicates how the violation was classified:
- Permanent ban = maximum severity (explicit rule violations)
- High warning % = serious violation
- Low warning % (20-40%) = minor-moderate violation
Tournament organizers should respect these classifications.
“Within Reason” Means:
Includes:
- Short temporary bans (≤1 week)
- Low-tier warning levels (10-30%)
- Bans where forum classified as minor-moderate
- Situations where actual harm was minimal
Excludes:
- Permanent bans
- Bans >1 week
- Bans where forum uses maximum severity classification
Deference Principle
When lacking complete information, tournament organizers should defer to forum authority’s determinations rather than second-guess or override them.
-----
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS
Concern: “But he ATTEMPTED to doxx someone—that’s serious!”
Response:
- Forum authority agrees it was inappropriate (hence the warning)
- But forum authority determined it wasn’t explicit doxxing-level serious (hence 20% warning, not permanent ban)
- Tournament should respect Master’s severity assessment
Concern: “What about community safety?”
Response:
- Forum authority already assessed safety risk
- Master determined 20% warning sufficient
- No evidence of ongoing risk (investigation unsuccessful, nothing posted)
- If Master believed serious safety risk → would have banned permanently
Concern: “Isn’t this being too lenient?”
Response:
- Not about leniency—about applying rules as written
- Tournament rule explicitly allows “temporary bans within reason”
- Forum’s owner treated this as minor-moderate violation.
- Tournament shouldn’t impose stricter standards than the staff itself, unless it deals within the realm of exclusively FUOTY rules, not forum rules. This incident was a forum rule violation, deference to staff is acceptable.
-----
FINAL DETERMINATION
@Volksstaffel IS ELIGIBLE for FUOTY 2025.
Primary Basis:
2-day temporary ban with 20% warning level falls within tournament exception for “temporary bans spanning no more than 1 week, within reason.”
Three-Part Test:
1.
Temporary ban (not permanent)1.
Duration ≤ 1 week (2 days < 7 days)1.
Within reason (20% warning, minimal harm, forum authority determination)Core Reasoning:
Forum authority (Master) with complete information determined this conduct warranted 20% warning—not permanent doxxing ban. This indicates a low-level offense. This classification should be respected. The tournament rule allows temporary bans “within reason,” and this objectively qualifies.
Last edited:
(like skimmed through the interesting parts 
