|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On February 01 2009 23:48 damenmofa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 08:59 Carnac wrote:
I dare you to show me instances of tl.net banning people for presenting a reasonable argument and/or disagreeing with the majority.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=79902¤tpage=8Hot_Bid: "presented argument in a reasonable way, no need to hide, nobody is gonna ban you" Mani: "Spineless entity, ban!" Now of course you might argue he got banned because of his motivations, but really the motivation of somebody else is just guesswork. Fact is he got banned for presenting a reasonable argument and disagreeing with the majority. Ughhhhhh, maybe you should have looked more closely, because children_in_need was never banned, making your example completely invalid :p
Only children_in_need_2 was banned, and this for the simple fact that we don't allow multiple accounts. That being said he started off with a lot of BS in his argument, but let's not get into this whole discussion again.
Else the iccup admins also could say they banned ret due to his motivation to undermine Iccup admins authority.
Let me make this clear, I find it ridiculous to ban ret for what he said, but I find even more ridiculous that tl.net people honestly think and say stuff like this has never happened at tl.net. You really think tl.nets admins are without fail? From all the bans over the years, not one was unjustified?? If you really think so you are naive...
Do you think I'm stupid? I'd never say that we are without fail, we cannot be, after all we are human.
It's just that your wording on page 5 made it sound as if "injust" bans (for disagreeing with us or w/e) were a common occurrence on TL and that's just wrong. It's so wrong that it makes me angry.
I strongly believe in transparency and I know the vast majority of the staff does. This is one of the reasons why we have a public ban list, most internet forums don't even have such a thing.
We don't ban for reasonably voiced opinions and criticism, period. + Show Spoiler +and no - stuff like racism doesn't belong in the category of a reasonably voiced opinion. just saying this to avoid people who want to be smartasses -.-
You can't read the staff forum, so let me just say that we regularly discuss bans, which also leads to unbans, shortening of ban periods, ...
This thread is about Iccup though, it shouldn't derail into a TL banning policy discussion thread, so I am ending it for this thread.
Feel free to voice your opinion on bans and whatever else in the website feedback forum if you still feel the need to.
|
I will just say that Iccup rocks, eventhough it may have flaws, its just so freakin great that iccup excists. Iccup keeps foreign bw breathing. Iccup cannot run without admins, I havent seen a direct link to the excact post where ret was banned, but in general, admins sometimes comes to a point where they just have to say, "This is how it is, deal with it, or get banned" im not 100% sure this was what happened, but if admins allow people to undermine and discuss their decisions over and over again, things might spiral out of control.
Ret proves a valid point indeed, and maybe if he had been "earlier" with his post, he wouldnt have been banned at all, so sometimes people are treated unfairly just by accident. There are often extra circumstances that must be seen. People seem to not want to understand the entire discussion, and/or also try to see it from their point of view.
People are making too big of a deal out of this. The rule was stated in the "old iccup" site, and it was there when these guys signed up, and they all probably knew about that rule. Ofcource it sucks, that these guys put in alot of hard work, to get it taken away, but thats life I guess, brutal 
|
Germany2896 Posts
Just to be fair: ICC has a rule that only the concerned players&admins may post in a "complaint about admin" thread. And ret's post was rather inflammatory.
I still dislike their policy concerning criticizing admins, but ret's forumban was not completely unwarrented.
IMO they should discuss the rules with the community and then adjust them as it seems like they don't reflect the general opinion on what is abuse.
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
Life is tough when you are banned on the iccup forums...
How will I get back at all these discers, can't make complaints, and it's like all these little shits know I'm banned, so they disc against me cause I can't do nothin about it.
oh my what have i done
|
On February 02 2009 09:01 ret wrote:
Life is tough when you are banned on the iccup forums...
How will I get back at all these discers, can't make complaints, and it's like all these little shits know I'm banned, so they disc against me cause I can't do nothin about it.
oh my what have i done
 poor ret
|
On February 02 2009 09:01 ret wrote:
Life is tough when you are banned on the iccup forums...
How will I get back at all these discers, can't make complaints, and it's like all these little shits know I'm banned, so they disc against me cause I can't do nothin about it.
oh my what have i done
Seriously the only thing you can do is suck up to some sort of head admin. Pick a really egotistical bastard and write an apologetic essay talking about how he's such a great admin blah blah blah.
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
I was being sarcastic 
|
oh
|
Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised ..
I had an ordeal with them recently when a D protoss accused me of using "allied mines" trick (which should be allowed, btw, imo. Comp. hold lurkers)
During the match - he was getting raped badly in every orifice - he starts writing different things in the chat, among them were "you use allied mines!", this made me chuckle and I replied "lols yes, ofc!" he then answered "ok, I report you" and left the game.
A poor player I might be, but this I know: nothing will come of this even if he made good on his promise, as players are physically unable to ally anyone in one on one mode, so he would only be wasting his time/energy on writing a complaint/sending the replay.
This is where the story should end, but guess what! Brilliant iccup trial AND super admins thought otherwise, however, and granted the complaint! I lost awarded pts, got warned and was told that "it was clearly allied mines," and that "I was lucky that it was a good day for him because he would have banned me otherwise, etc"
So, off to the "complain about an admin" forum I go and wait a couple of days before someone even higher up the echelon sees this thread. He decides that he will do some "testing" before he can make a decision. Meanwhile, I am being told by the admin who granted the complaint that I should stop lying and be happy that they are not going to ban me and that he is sticking by his decision.
After many days, and much testing they conclude that you, indeed, cannot ally someone in one on one mode. The match results are reversed once again, I am told that they will inform the rest of the staff and noone is punished in the end. After all, "how could they possibly know!?"
Makes me wonder -- is playing (or having played) starcraft even a requirement for becoming an iccup admin and did they set the IQ limit for admins at 70?
|
TL should make their own ladder? << Thats what I think. Plus the admins won't be gay.
|
On February 02 2009 10:11 meathook wrote:
Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised ..
I had an ordeal with them recently when a D protoss accused me of using "allied mines" trick (which should be allowed, btw, imo. Comp. hold lurkers)
During the match - he was getting raped badly in every orifice - he starts writing different things in the chat, among them were "you use allied mines!", this made me chuckle and I replied "lols yes, ofc!" he then answered "ok, I report you" and left the game.
A poor player I might be, but this I know: nothing will come of this even if he made good on his promise, as players are physically unable to ally anyone in one on one mode, so he would only be wasting his time/energy on writing a complaint/sending the replay.
This is where the story should end, but guess what! Brilliant iccup trial AND super admins thought otherwise, however, and granted the complaint! I lost awarded pts, got warned and was told that "it was clearly allied mines," and that "I was lucky that it was a good day for him because he would have banned me otherwise, etc"
So, off to the "complain about an admin" forum I go and wait a couple of days before someone even higher up the echelon sees this thread. He decides that he will do some "testing" before he can make a decision. Meanwhile, I am being told by the admin who granted the complaint that I should stop lying and be happy that they are not going to ban me and that he is sticking by his decision.
After many days, and much testing they conclude that you, indeed, cannot ally someone in one on one mode. The match results are reversed once again, I am told that they will inform the rest of the staff and noone is punished in the end. After all, "how could they possibly know!?"
Makes me wonder -- is playing (or having played) starcraft even a requirement for becoming an iccup admin and did they set the IQ limit for admins at 70?
bwahahahaa thats great
i dont know whats better
the fact that a admin actually cleared that
or that there's an actual "complain about an admin" forum
|
ret cant you just transfer and play on other names, so you can report discs/etc..
|
|
|
oh god, oh dear god, its 2:30 at night i really shouldn't be laughing so hard, my parents might come check on me, but this is gold haha.
*After many days, and much testing they conclude that you, indeed, cannot ally someone in one on one mode. The match results are reversed once again, I am told that they will inform the rest of the staff and noone is punished in the end. After all, "how could they possibly know!?"*
|
I think the problem was that BIG advertisement on the front page looking for admins. I can't imagine some of the 12 year olds that must have gotten through.
|
Just because I completely disagree with ICCup's decision in this case, and this thread seems to be going off-topic to the point of no return, I'd like to point it back in a constructive direction.
ICCup has a rule stating that you can only play against players a certain number of times regardless as to if they are legit or not.
Not only is it somewhat unjust to allow higher ranks play more games against the same people (it's harder to rank up at higher ranks so why allow them to pick on weaker links more, etc? [even though they do have less opponents at higher ranks]), but ICCup admins do not enforce this rule to everyone (even if it is their intention). The fact is they just don't have the manpower to go and check every_single_account from A+ to D- and count out the games played in each series against certain players (and verify that they were played within an illegal time frame). And what about playing the same person in 20 LEGIT games BUT the person switches between 4 accounts? That qualifies as playing the same person an illegal amount of times; so do admins check IPs of the opponents of all players?
Honestly it's just a bogus rule. ICCup is a competitive ladder and if people want to play an extended series of legit games, why not allow it? It just doesn't make logical sense to PUNISH someone who is playing more games just because it's against one person. Yes, yes of course if the games aren't legit or there is suspicion of cheating it could and should be investigated. But we're talking not only about the average Joe, but reputable players being penalized in hard earned points just because they played a few games over a nonsense game limit.
It is my personal opinion that the rule be removed. It has no logic to be in place and being that it wasn't_even_written_down on the new site, I seriously doubt the majority were following it before (or even knew about it, for that matter), and I doubt they will even follow it now. And don't comeback saying "well just because people don't follow it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a rule", because that isn't my main point. This rule is not required. Its presence prevents nothing negative and its absence would only allow just freedom in playing more amounts of games against opponents. You might say "well it prevents abuse". Do you really think if people intended to abuse (which is illegal no matter what) that they'd think better of it just because there's a rule in place limiting games against opponents?
And to those who keep saying "The admins are doing the best they can, stop hating", this is the wrong time. This isn't about flaming admins unjustly, it's constructive feedback about a current rule. This isn't putting down admins and the only thing it's asking of them is to simply remove a few lines of text from their rules which need not apply to the legit gamers of the StarCraft community.
|
If you and I are 100% equally good at bw lets say we are both D- in skill, meaning we win 50/50 each and we just play each other, we will eventually reach B+. That is what this "bogus rule" is supposed to prevent. in this case however there was no rule agaisnt playing the same opponent a lot over several days, that is something they added afterwards to justify their own decision. Having such a rule makes sense though.
|
On February 02 2009 10:11 meathook wrote:
Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised ..
I had an ordeal with them recently when a D protoss accused me of using "allied mines" trick (which should be allowed, btw, imo. Comp. hold lurkers)
During the match - he was getting raped badly in every orifice - he starts writing different things in the chat, among them were "you use allied mines!", this made me chuckle and I replied "lols yes, ofc!" he then answered "ok, I report you" and left the game.
A poor player I might be, but this I know: nothing will come of this even if he made good on his promise, as players are physically unable to ally anyone in one on one mode, so he would only be wasting his time/energy on writing a complaint/sending the replay.
This is where the story should end, but guess what! Brilliant iccup trial AND super admins thought otherwise, however, and granted the complaint! I lost awarded pts, got warned and was told that "it was clearly allied mines," and that "I was lucky that it was a good day for him because he would have banned me otherwise, etc"
So, off to the "complain about an admin" forum I go and wait a couple of days before someone even higher up the echelon sees this thread. He decides that he will do some "testing" before he can make a decision. Meanwhile, I am being told by the admin who granted the complaint that I should stop lying and be happy that they are not going to ban me and that he is sticking by his decision.
After many days, and much testing they conclude that you, indeed, cannot ally someone in one on one mode. The match results are reversed once again, I am told that they will inform the rest of the staff and noone is punished in the end. After all, "how could they possibly know!?"
Makes me wonder -- is playing (or having played) starcraft even a requirement for becoming an iccup admin and did they set the IQ limit for admins at 70?
You have got to be kidding me.
|
On February 02 2009 11:38 Supah wrote:
If you and I are 100% equally good at bw lets say we are both D- in skill, meaning we win 50/50 each and we just play each other, we will eventually reach B+. That is what this "bogus rule" is supposed to prevent. in this case however there was no rule agaisnt playing the same opponent a lot over several days, that is something they added afterwards to justify their own decision. Having such a rule makes sense though.
Why not just make it so that after a certain amount of games vs one player, you simply stop earning points? One of our programming gods (R1CH, MasterOfChaos, etc.) could add that to rank system in about 5 seconds.
|
lol you could easily abuse iccup while staying in the rules, playing vs same person but only 6 games a day or whatever the limit is, and playing no other games, the person could just make a new name every time or whatever. That wouldn't break any actual rules would it?
Nice story above. You can't make this stuff up lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
