EPT[Valor] Strelok Statement - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Strelok.
Ukraine42 Posts
| ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:38 Glaucus wrote: Rekrul, those rules aren't examples of poor rules. Those are examples what happens if you have very clear rules that are enforced very clearly. If you muck, your hand is dead. That's how it should be. you can't muck a hand and then take it back even if you won. Otherwise you should make it so your hand can't ever be dead unless you have to have to put more money in the pot and you don't. You always have the freedom to give people back their money, if that itself isn't against the rules. Also, this has nothing to do with the Strelok case. If they have the principle: "Lipton makes a final decision and that stands no matter what." then they have that rule. and then if Lipton makes a bad decision that can't be reversed. If they have a rule stating "We aim to make the most fair ruling possible and only the last ruling will be the final one." then they have that as a rule. If they have a general rule for a disconnect then they have that. "Game is played again unless Lipton rules game was unequal enough to award a win." Replaying game 1 because of game 2 makes no sense. I guess at some point Strelok took the the "I don't accept this, I demand to replay the entire Bo3 or I will refuse to play" position. This would be an attempt at blackmail and it should never fly. He should expect to accept the ruling. You never get to decide you deserve a win because you suffered an unfair ruling. And even if this is a rule, then Fenix would get the autowin because he was ruled against unfairly, apparenently. Does Strelok even claim that in game 2 he had enough of an advantage to get a win? If not and he refuses to replay game 2, he forfeits. Why is it that everyone with 10 posts is a dumbass? LOL. Thank you for educating me on the rules of poker. You're right though, they don't apply to streloks case. They apply to STRELOK. If you actually have morals, honor, and/or self-respect you can find situations were disregarding the 'rules' is actually the 'right' thing to do. Hence my examples. | ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
Lipton and Daniel Lee (Tasteless too, but he hasn't been mentioned) obviously put in quite a bit of work to organize this tournament and should be give some respect for that. I'm not saying that their decisions were perfect, but that they should be respected. They created the tournament; they can run it as they see fit. Of course, Artosis' comments indicate that wrong decisions had been made and, therefore, had been adjusted. If, after that, a player doesn't want to remain in that tournament, then that's fair enough, but it should be recognized that this affects more than just the players of the game in question. This throws of the whole tournament and causes problems for the organizers and all players involved. I'm not saying that Strelok did anything wrong necessarily. I certainly don't have the right to make claims like that about anyone involved in this incident and neither do most people in this thread. However, I just wanted to point out that a lot of work has obviously gone into this, it's a great opportunity for the players involved and it's easy to forget that when you're just throwing blame around at people. | ||
|
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:40 Strelok. wrote: I won't reply more in this thread, because i already said all i wanted to. LOL says:: kid knows when hes lost LOL says: wonder if he will ask lipton to replay this thread Dan - LAS VEGAS says: lOLOLOL Dan - LAS VEGAS says: HAHAHAHAHA | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13921 Posts
also not everyone can be perfect with regarding being fair with rules, thats why kespa is around. | ||
|
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
FANCY THAT | ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:49 StorZerg wrote: also not everyone can be perfect with regarding being fair with rules, thats why kespa is around. I agree with you in principle.  | ||
|
Baytuts
Brazil101 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:18 RushWifDietCoke wrote: He can be a man and finish what he started or he can be childish about it and drop out. Sorry to put it so brutally honest but its the truth. I wanted to see him play and possibly win. i mean the decision change of the referees, not about Strelok's attitude after this | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13921 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:50 Rekrul wrote: if i perished would the world cease to have drama ????????????? FANCY THAT lucky i'm not a robot, other wise i'd go blow up from this irrefutable logic | ||
|
TT1
Canada10045 Posts
| ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
If you actually have morals, honor, and/or self-respect you can find situations were disregarding the 'rules' is actually the 'right' thing to do. Hence my examples. In a game both players play by the rules. It's not immoral to win chips when your opponent mucks the better hand. It's not immoral to accept the rules you actually claim to follow. Doesn't mean you shouldnt be 'nice' and overrule the rules yourself. Rules aren't there to be moral. They are there to prevent disputes and disagreements and to always make it clear what should happen. It's very naive to think that the rules define what is 'the right thing to do'. Isn't it immoral to accept the pot you lost accorcding to the rules just because your opponent doesn't understand the rules? Because that's what the guys you gave the chips to did. Would you refuse the pot if you mucked a hand that would have won? If so, does that show your morals and honor? Apparently this tournament doesn't have rules concerning disconnects. At least I couldn't find them. I only found 'no smurf' rules from round 1. In that case if Lipton made what he called a 'final ruling', he has a big problem. He has no room to go back on his words unless he thinks he can just break his word if he feels like. And if he can do that then it's a big jungle. But if Lipton does so, Strelok should have known that there were no rules and that anything could happen, including this. He has the right to refuse to play. He can point out Lipton broke his word. But no rule states he deserves a win. And what about Fenix going out of his way to get Artosis to force Lipton to break his word? Lipton lost all his credibility thanks to Fenix need to get a win, apparently. Is that honor? Remember again there are no rules at all and Fenix agreed to this as well. So Rekrul admits he's basically attacking Strelok for lack of 'honor' while bragging about his own. And of course totally ignoring the actual dispute. Just shows what kind of personality he truly has. | ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
On June 29 2009 22:59 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: brb i gotta fart on a little girl so i get the full meaning out of this post Lmao. Do you guys not have little sisters growing up? | ||
|
SchOOl_VicTIm
Greece2394 Posts
I lol'ed at "I am a public person". BTW HAPPY BIRTHDAY REKRUL!!! | ||
|
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On June 30 2009 00:03 Glaucus wrote: In a game both players play by the rules. It's not immoral to win chips when your opponent mucks the better hand. It's not immoral to accept the rules you actually claim to follow. Doesn't mean you shouldnt be 'nice' and overrule the rules yourself. Rules aren't there to be moral. They are there to prevent disputes and disagreements and to always make it clear what should happen. It's very naive to think that the rules define what is 'the right thing to do'. Isn't it immoral to accept the pot you lost accorcding to the rules just because your opponent doesn't understand the rules? Because that's what the guys you gave the chips to did. Would you refuse the pot if you mucked a hand that would have won? If so, does that show your morals and honor? Apparently this tournament doesn't have rules concerning disconnects. At least I couldn't find them. I only found 'no smurf' rules from round 1. In that case if Lipton made what he called a 'final ruling', he has a big problem. He has no room to go back on his words unless he thinks he can just break his word if he feels like. And if he can do that then it's a big jungle. But if Lipton does so, Strelok should have known that there were no rules and that anything could happen, including this. He has the right to refuse to play. He can point out Lipton broke his word. But no rule states he deserves a win. So Rekrul admits he's basically attacking Strelok for lack of 'honor' while bragging about his own. And of course totally ignoring the actual dispute. Just shows what kind of personality he truly has. I didn't ignore the actual dispute. I addressed it and Artosis already GG'd the thread anyways. Would you refuse the pot if you mucked a hand that would have won? If so, does that show your morals and honor? I never make mistakes like that in poker. I am basically the BEST and perfect and hold myself to a higher standard than everyone else because of this. I can happily let people slide when they fuck up even though I know that that same very person might be the kind of mother fucker that wouldn't let me slide...simply because I never make stupid mistakes like that. | ||
|
Nylan
United States795 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
1. It was bad for the admins to make a decision and go back on it. 2. Strelok can justifiably by upset about that. 3. Fenix AND strelok should not have lost because of this. 3a. This means that Fenix deserved the regame as a close game -> disconnect should never be awarded a win in tourney play AND strelok should be man enough/have a cool head to accept a shitty decision WHICH MEANS he recovers from admins flipping a decision. 4. Artosis made the right decision to have them replay game 2. | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
hellhawk123
United States84 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13921 Posts
| ||
|
Valentir
Norway266 Posts
| ||
| ||
