Wow! We agree. A couple of things, the intent of the PDGA has always been transparency. I suspect, since I'm not in the know, they are worried about battles over the length of punishments and letting out info about player's punishments (protecting player privacy is important, for example, BW can release all the info he's got and doesn't).
Secondly, the matrix I recall (over ten years now) had some ranges and some not. It just depended on the crime. Simple vs more complex. So, I think you're right. I don't want to go beyond that in my memory because I'm old and I think it is my place.
To your first point - They SHOULD be prepared for battles over the length of punishments. That is simple due process, which should apply to this sort of thing. Again, if the DC process and accompanying matrix are done right, and they follow said process/matrix in their decision, then they should have nothing to hide.
Transparency of what player committed what violation is a separate issue and I agree 100% with the PDGA attorney in keeping that private. The players themselves releasing information about their situation to the public is up to them.
It is certainly inevitable that Bob will get suspended under Violation A, which has a suspension length range of A - Z, and Bob will argue that John also got Violation A, but he only got the suspension length of B, while Bob received Z. It's the DC's job to provide a clear explanation to Bob why he received Z. It is not their job to discuss John's case with Bob.
A simple Example would be a category like "Player Misconduct with an incident of Violence" with a suspension length range of "2 months to permanent".
Bob was playing a PDGA event and got into an altercation on the course. He ended up pulling a knife on a guy and stabbing him in the stomach who was later rushed to the hospital and spent a month in the ICU and had several corrective surgeries. Criminal charges aside, the DC decides Bob is at the farthest end of the spectrum of this rules violation category and he is permanently banned from the PDGA.
John was playing a PDGA event and got into an altercation on the course. He ended up verbally threatening a guy on his card and pushed him, then the situation calmed. The DC decides John earned the minimum 2 month suspension.
A player appealing a decision is not based on what another player received. It's based on where the PDGA decided they fall on the spectrum and why. This is a bad example for an appeal, but let's say it turned out that Bob stabbed the guy after he flashed a gun then came at Bob who then pulled knife in fear for his life and stabbed him. The police later decide Bob was acting in self defense and Bob then appeals the decision of the permanent ban with the PDGA.
My extreme example is not the best, but you get the point.
