On May 18 2013 17:44 Kiante wrote:]
i'd rather have a tournament on a non-ideal server where we dont have to exclude players like Doty, than a tournament on iccup where we have to exclude him. it's pretty simple really.

yea, its simple - we only have 50% of the registrations of the first two qualifiers. so we can make a tournament without one person who get banned for "some reason" or we can exclude 50% of the players who are willing to play, to do it on a "non-ideal server" where some people having latency problems or what ever.

Kiante

Australia7069 Posts

May 18 2013 10:44 GMT

#43

latency is completely peer to peer. The latency between players is exactly the same on ANY server, because the server doesn't host the game, it just facilitates the connection. And if we cede to demands to ban players that iccup has problems with where does it end. What if you were rude to an iccup admin and got banned from iccup, would you be happy being excluded from TLS because of it?

vanatir

Germany355 Posts

May 18 2013 11:07 GMT

#44

i dont remember that i bm someone on bw, so i would be fine with penalty all players who are abusing or bming other people. last qualifier i tryed to report someone bming me half of the game but there is no rule to avoid this behaviour. but its not my decision. when tl decides to do the foreign torunament on fish we can only choose to play or not. it reminds me on the semih case.
its painful to see the decreasing bw community have to deal with tl and iccup doing both there own thing. but its probably just my point of view.

edit: would tl change the server if another player like dsaqwe, mazur, lalush or pike had trouble with iccup?

dOTY

Germany483 Posts

May 18 2013 11:33 GMT

#45

On May 18 2013 20:07 EnjoYmE wrote:
i dont remember that i bm someone on bw, so i would be fine with penalty all players who are abusing or bming other people. last qualifier i tryed to report someone bming me half of the game but there is no rule to avoid this behaviour. but its not my decision. when tl decides to do the foreign torunament on fish we can only choose to play or not. it reminds me on the semih case.
its painful to see the decreasing bw community have to deal with tl and iccup doing both there own thing. but its probably just my point of view.

edit: would tl change the server if another player like dsaqwe, mazur, lalush or pike had trouble with iccup?

If it was for no reason, i think so.

thezanursic

5504 Posts

May 18 2013 11:41 GMT

#46

On May 18 2013 17:44 Kiante wrote:

Show nested quote +

i'd rather have a tournament on a non-ideal server where we dont have to exclude players like Doty, than a tournament on iccup where we have to exclude him. it's pretty simple really.

Honestly getting on fish might seem intimidating to people, but honestly it's really easy. at the end of the day it's just another server. Everything works the same

What does ICCUP have against dOTY?

thezanursic

5504 Posts

May 18 2013 11:43 GMT

#47

Why don't you go like hey ICCUP. Unban dOTY it's in the best interest of both our parties. TLS provides more activity on ICCUP and TLS having more players is also beneficial.

Did you guys try talking it over?

radley

Poland582 Posts

May 18 2013 15:04 GMT

#48

Well, well... I thought there were more unreasonable bans on Fish Server than on iCCup... I guess I wasn't right.

skzlime

Hungary462 Posts

May 18 2013 15:24 GMT

#49

what's up with bw players' sense of entitlement and willingness to always question authority? although iccup's rigid set of sometimes questionable rules could really use some update. banning the whole event in the middle of its second season qualifiers is quite confusing. why not force only games involving blacklisted players to be played on a different server? since that's essentially just doty (afaik) in this case, it could effortlessly be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Kiante

Australia7069 Posts

May 18 2013 15:26 GMT

#50

On May 19 2013 00:24 skzlime wrote:
what's up with bw players' sense of entitlement and willingness to always question authority? although iccup's rigid set of sometimes questionable rules could really use some update. banning the whole event in the middle of its second season qualifiers is quite confusing. why not force only games involving blacklisted players to be played on a different server? since that's essentially just doty (afaik) in this case, it could effortlessly be handled on a case-by-case basis.

we tried to do that but iccup refused

Marshall_D

United States196 Posts

May 18 2013 15:30 GMT

#51

where do i sign in again? gonna grab a dip

Powert

Russian Federation66 Posts

May 18 2013 15:38 GMT

#52

which channel?

NotJumperer

United States1371 Posts

May 18 2013 15:43 GMT

#53

--- Nuked ---

BigFan

TLADT24920 Posts

May 18 2013 15:52 GMT

#54

On May 19 2013 00:26 Kiante wrote:

Show nested quote +

we tried to do that but iccup refused

oh that's quite bizzare lol. I would've thought just having the banned player(s) play on another server but everyone else on iccup would've been ok, guess not ><

2Pacalypse-

Croatia9571 Posts

May 18 2013 15:57 GMT

#55

On May 19 2013 00:52 BigFan wrote:

Show nested quote +

oh that's quite bizzare lol. I would've thought just having the banned player(s) play on another server but everyone else on iccup would've been ok, guess not ><

They saw that as us bypassing their rules.