I remember when I was called to the admin channel for the first time in a private matter a couple of month ago because I had insulted my opponent.
The truth is I swear quite often and rely on my opponent to not report me.

In this case the reason why I was swearing at him was because I got disconnected from the game and when I rejoined I had only 15 seconds left and he timed me out.
I considerd this to be in violation of the rules but wouldn't bother with it because i knew the client didn't save anyways and a swearing and expression of very disconsent seemed like the proper and unburocratic response. Well, he did report me.

So I stated my case to the administration and they told me I should suck it up, the client would be not yet finished and promise to not swear anymore at people. There were no consequences for him.

I was moaning about it a bit in the forums and a bit later the administration made a statement that they would not tolerate disconnected people being timed out anymore (they put it like they never tolerated it although they clearly did).

Now today I have much more certaincy when it comes to that. I know when my opponent doesnt respond, if he is absent and doesn't react if anything thelike is happening I'm not supposed to time him out according to the rules.
I guess I should be glad about it but why does this whole thing like all soft rules just make me feel really itchy?
Why don't I feel justice is being served?

For the most part I guess there just happens to be a button. My undersstanding would be that it requires very extreme and exceptional cases to make it improper to use the button. Fumbbl does the opposite. It states: Only if your opponent is not absent you are allowed to use it = only if you know your opponent isn't absent you are allowed to use it. Now thats a huge problem. Because how am I supposed to know if my opponnet is thinking or spending 2 minutes in the kitchen?

The fumbbl policy in fact promotes a view that the button wich is THERE is NOT supposed to be used. Now that is a problem not because of the rules in the rulebook about timeing somebody out but because of the genereally soft charakter of the fumbbl rules.

Now I could go into technical aspects like: If i disconnected from a game I have to rejoin and leave visible traces what makes it easy for a coach to react on hard standarts but the line between being slow and being absent is very blurry.

One of the probably biggest differences between the rules in the LRB and the rules on fumbbl is that the rulebook almost exclusivly uses hard rules while the site almost exclusivly uses soft rules.
Now there are pro's and con's to both systems but let me evaluate a bit.

Why blurry lines at all?
Blurry lines are good to make things ethical. Everything becomes a matter of common sense and taste and emphasy. Soft and blurry lines are much less volunarble to abuse then hard rules, because instead of edges and shapes you just have a thick fog wich you are not supposed to enter. A gaming site is about having fun and not taking things too serious. By setting different standarts it's accomplished that the majority can play in peace and the worst offenders are removed.

Why hard lines?
Hard Lines are unethical. They are not a matter of morale. They state what can be done and what can't without being judgemental. It may be appealing to have rules based on ethics but it becomes less appealing when it's not your own ethics you have to live up to but someone elses. How often have you read a site rule and cried out in surprise of an interpretation from the side of the administration, realising you have enterd the fog of unclearity. That doesn't necessarily mean that you broke a rule but it means that you are at risk to do so.
Bloodbowl is a sport and sports are about winning. Winning you accomplish by reading the rules and looking for the best way to take them to your advantage.

If in a sports competition it is not just about winning a game but winning a lot of games in a larger sceme, the environment of the game becomes part of another and larger game. The game doesn't stop off the pitch. Strong teams win and weak teams lose. That is part of the way the game is designed. For some people it is unethical to pay attention to these things. For others it's unethical to pay attention to stalling.

I have my own fair share of things I consider unethical. But if somebody presents me with the question I often realise that most of my ethical views have no real foundation other then I'd maybe prefer the game to be in a different way then it is.

The fog of uncertaincy doesn't remove abuse of the system. It removes the worst offenders and less worse offenders take their place. The bravest bender of rules without actually breaking them becomes the one with the biggest advantage.

The most honest coach, the one who stays out of the fog entirely ends up with huge disadvantages.
A honest coach who cares about winning will essentially be dealing with a lot of disappointment about what other people do and how unethical they are.
The result is: The system of soft rules creates what it tries to avoid:
Some people push things further then others because they have guts or the understandings or the courage to press things to their limits and they will take other people by surprise and they will upset them. And if the administration gets confronted with these cases they will do 90% of the time nothing and call it fair game and if you are going to ask them if you can do it too, they will tell you that if you feel like something is illegal it probably is.

It's the way of people with little morale telling people with a real concious to get in line and shut up or to out themselves as the bad people so that corruption and brotherly favorism can thrive. That's the very core of soft rules that will grow to get infested by favorism the longer an establishment exists without critizsm. From of this derives the duty of every citizen to remain vigilant towards the system and to never take a statement from their side for granted. And the less tranparent the system the bigger the need to doubt.

The more clear, upright straight and honest a system is, it leaves nobody at a disadvantage. Hard rules are more volunarable to flaws in their own design and such design flaws can be abused on mass. A consquence can be a reduction of diversity and ultimately this can make the game one sided and less pleasant but in it's emotionles way of proceeding it's also peacefull and pleasant because it allows people to explore the game to its full extent without worries about the 'what if'.