|
On February 02 2009 07:14 Scooge wrote:
They didn't ban ret. They banned him from posting on their forums. It's a minor, but very important distinction. ret's comments just added to the flames already on their forums and they wanted it to stop. Regardless of what ret said I can respect that.
And to the guy who said it was easy to just add a whole new system of checks to auto enforce the games per player rule, I'd really like to see you modify PVPGN and submit the code to Iccup to review and add.
This thread is pretty ridiculous. We have someone a few posts up comparing Iccup to the Nazi regime. I think some of you are blowing this way out of proportion because the players this hit are your friends or countrymen or someone semi-famous in the community.
What the hell? who is comparing ICCUP to that? was the word "Nazi" even mentioned?
|
On February 02 2009 12:04 Nightmarjoo wrote:
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.
Then you can come up with some new system.
For example, every time someone hits the 10 game limit with one player, or whatever, he gets a point. After 5 points, an admin is automatically notified and the player investigated.
Players don't have to be informed of the specific numbers, so that barely skating around the rules doesn't happen, but just informed of the theory. The post in the rule book could be something like, "Don't abuse the ladder by playing an overt number of games with a certain player. For practice games, please use melee or use map settings."
Just an idea.
|
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.
This is true, HOWEVER I don't think just on the off chance you play 200 games with the same person as training that they should completely get rid of the ability to punish people who play each other a lot. I think that can be handled on a case by case basis. There argument makes sense only if people mass playing 1on1 (literally like 200 games) was a common thing that happened on the server. Which just don't happen too often if at all, so I don't believe that justifies the rule itself.
Obviously you should warn players who do that, tell them to play on other accounts or play other players then deduct their points accordingly. I understand that it might not be fair for known players to be treated different, but they should be. When you are an upper tier player its harder to find games and you tend to train with the same group of people, which increases the chances of you gaming with them on iccup and playing a lot of games. They shouldn't be punished for that.
However when its found in like D/C ranks, I think it should be treated a little more strictly since I don't think most C/D players bond and create training partners the way upper tier players do. At least in the same competitive environment as the A/B players do.
But yeah, I think ICCup admins are retarded for the most part, I never liked Chelomon even when I was an admin on there for a few months when it first opened. He is a narrow minded douche who doesn't change his opinion even when he is wrong. It was frustrating talking to him in admin forums since he was such a dumb ass especially as a super admin, I don't know why they ever gave him that level of power/authority.
However, I think we also need to respect what unk/yelloant do to maintain the the server, and the admins who do tech work. They are the ones who truly keep ICCup going, I don't think we need to respect all the admins for that, the idiotic ladder admins like Chelo and that other ban crazy guy just suck and make people sometimes overlook the hard work that Unk and YelloAnt put into the server, because of their pigheaded ways of dealing with issues.
If people have a really big problem with this, then you can become an admin. Just 1-2 hours of work for it a week and you can fix a lot of problems and help out the community, if 10 of the people who bitched about how shitty ICCup admins are just spent 1-2 hours a week as an admin reviewing complaints, you could get a lot of work done. While the current ladder admins are retarded a lot of the time, they are also working for free (even if its just because SOME of them enjoy the power)
Just think about it this way, when you are idling in ICCup chatting with some friends, you could be doing some Admin work. Chaos launcher has this nice little plugin that allows you to window starcraft, so you can watch the screen as you read forums :D I know I spend a lot of time chatting on starcraft which I could be doing admin work and helping out the community, but I don't.
My reasoning behind that is that I do not ladder a lot, and I don't really care about the ladders problems/flaws/corrupt admins. It doesn't effect me since I don't competitively game anymore, just a few casual games with friends here and there. But my words were directed towards those play a lot and are complaining about the server.
|
I don't think that they should have rules that are set in stone, but just general guide lines and they should judge each case differently.
|
On February 02 2009 12:40 PaeZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 07:14 Scooge wrote:
They didn't ban ret. They banned him from posting on their forums. It's a minor, but very important distinction. ret's comments just added to the flames already on their forums and they wanted it to stop. Regardless of what ret said I can respect that.
And to the guy who said it was easy to just add a whole new system of checks to auto enforce the games per player rule, I'd really like to see you modify PVPGN and submit the code to Iccup to review and add.
This thread is pretty ridiculous. We have someone a few posts up comparing Iccup to the Nazi regime. I think some of you are blowing this way out of proportion because the players this hit are your friends or countrymen or someone semi-famous in the community. What the hell? who is comparing ICCUP to that? was the word "Nazi" even mentioned?
Reading the whole thread would give you a better understanding rather than control + F
On February 01 2009 21:15 besiger wrote:
...
So what ? If they see some of us posting here how we dont agree with what they are doing and its wrong, we will get banned too ? What the fuck is this, the gestapo ?
|
I would also like to add to my previous post that if they had more GOOD admins, they would be less inclined to keep bad admins. When you are short handed, you tend to take whatever help you can get.
Sometimes free help sucks. PGT died partly to one admin if I remember correctly? Martian~BloOd was it? Pissed off some mexican who hacked the entire thing. Not that its his fault for the guys actions, but he instigated it. I don't remember if he was being unreasonable or not though. I just remember that PGT seemed to have some pretty good admins. Not as much corrupt abusive ones as ICCup seems to have, but when the demand is high and the supply is low, you have to make due.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Just build in match count restrictions based on day/week/month into the code, and we would never have this issue. Pple can play each other however many times they wish, it just wont count after a certain number of games.
ie: 10 games a day, 30 games a week, 100 games a month vs same opponent MAX for B rank, tighter restrictions for lower ranks as they will have more opponents etc.
It's silly to have this be done manually and leave it up to subjective interpretation. Make it concrete!
|
On February 02 2009 07:14 Scooge wrote:
This thread is pretty ridiculous. We have someone a few posts up comparing Iccup to the Nazi regime. I think some of you are blowing this way out of proportion because the players this hit are your friends or countrymen or someone semi-famous in the community.
You're absolutely right.
The Nazi at least had more mature, less retarded people running their show.
|
people should just read the iccup-rules..
|
On February 02 2009 16:15 Piste wrote:
people should just read the iccup-rules..
Fail
|
On February 02 2009 14:24 Scooge wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 12:40 PaeZ wrote:On February 02 2009 07:14 Scooge wrote:
They didn't ban ret. They banned him from posting on their forums. It's a minor, but very important distinction. ret's comments just added to the flames already on their forums and they wanted it to stop. Regardless of what ret said I can respect that.
And to the guy who said it was easy to just add a whole new system of checks to auto enforce the games per player rule, I'd really like to see you modify PVPGN and submit the code to Iccup to review and add.
This thread is pretty ridiculous. We have someone a few posts up comparing Iccup to the Nazi regime. I think some of you are blowing this way out of proportion because the players this hit are your friends or countrymen or someone semi-famous in the community. What the hell? who is comparing ICCUP to that? was the word "Nazi" even mentioned? Reading the whole thread would give you a better understanding rather than control + F Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 21:15 besiger wrote:
...
So what ? If they see some of us posting here how we dont agree with what they are doing and its wrong, we will get banned too ? What the fuck is this, the gestapo ?
yeah, im sure i meant that word for word, i really think they are exactly the same as the nazi regime, really ?
And you really think things like * if we see you say bad things about us anywhere we will ban you * arent absurd ?
|
Norway28665 Posts
nobody would have complained at all if they just removed the points gotten from the additional games..
|
On February 02 2009 11:42 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sadly, no, but fact that it is true makes it even funnier, I think.
Here is the link to the thread I made (Click for lulz), and here is the replay, in case anyone is interested.
+ Show Spoiler [some of the PMs I received] +- Hi!
Our admin staff recieved a complaint ID2191 from this player about this game
Admin iccup.zealing reviewed this complaint and made a diccision:
Titleist_playe changes: pts: +50+100 wins: +1 loss: -1
FadetoBolivian changes: pts: -100-50 wins: -1 loss: +1
Admin's comment:
Allied mines. Reverse.
_________________________
- Uhh... is this a joke??? It is impossible to ally a person in one on one mode, therefore I cannot even do that ... go and try it yourself in a game. I won that game without any underhanded tactics...
Seems I only have the first two left. Strange. But it was more of the same from here; I was telling them "wtf!?" and they were pointing back at me saying "NO U!"
Edit: On February 02 2009 12:40 PaeZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 07:14 Scooge wrote:
They didn't ban ret. They banned him from posting on their forums. It's a minor, but very important distinction. ret's comments just added to the flames already on their forums and they wanted it to stop. Regardless of what ret said I can respect that.
And to the guy who said it was easy to just add a whole new system of checks to auto enforce the games per player rule, I'd really like to see you modify PVPGN and submit the code to Iccup to review and add.
This thread is pretty ridiculous. We have someone a few posts up comparing Iccup to the Nazi regime. I think some of you are blowing this way out of proportion because the players this hit are your friends or countrymen or someone semi-famous in the community. What the hell? who is comparing ICCUP to that? was the word "Nazi" even mentioned?
Ever heard of Godwin's Law, kid? Lols.. this thread is over.
On February 02 2009 17:45 ffswowsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 16:15 Piste wrote:
people should just read the iccup-rules.. Fail
QFE
|
Hi, Yes u use allied mines its my option, I dont close and stay decision by iccup.mai-k
My eyes are bleeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
