EPTTop 48 Changes - Page 5
| Forum Index > Razer TSL Forum |
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
kroko
Finland2136 Posts
On April 22 2008 17:09 IH4t3z3rg wrote: 9 games per day vs the same opponent?!?!? Maaaaan u are incouraging ABUSING on your ladder! I strongly advise this limit to be set a 3 MAXIMUM x day vs same opponent! There are a milion kids to play with, outhere ... don't need to play your best friend 9 times and share points ... really this is not a good parameter. Do something 9 is ok, in B level its so hard to find opponents... | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13536 Posts
This isn't a court of law - you take into account the balance of probabilities which point to abuse. Imagine if the cases were reversed and Testie was playing P against Mondi's T. Do you think G5 wouldn't be kicking up a stink then? | ||
|
HaiVan
Bulgaria1698 Posts
| ||
|
sasal
Germany74 Posts
On April 22 2008 11:54 HotZhot wrote: Amazingly proffesional and well handled, I seriously cannot express how much TSL owns everything else at the moment. Keep the good work going guys, we (me) really appreciate it. I agree. Especially when you think of the fact that it is the first big event in this caliber and then its often a tightrope walk when there are not yet exact rules and definitions for every possible situation where players can take dubois or unfair advantages. | ||
|
Empty007
Peru5 Posts
| ||
|
tehsex
296 Posts
| ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
Much ezier to just watch replay imo...they look pretty fucked up. | ||
|
0z
Luxembourg877 Posts
On April 22 2008 17:39 RowdierBob wrote: Come on people... Playing against your friend while he off races 1 hour out from qualifying deadline when you desperately need points to get top 48? This isn't a court of law - you take into account the balance of probabilities which point to abuse. Imagine if the cases were reversed and Testie was playing P against Mondi's T. Do you think G5 wouldn't be kicking up a stink then? It is important how the ban is worded - they did not say - his friend offraced against him - hence the ban, they said in effect, he is a whiny little bitch, that causes trouble - while this last statement may be true, I don't see how it makes him more bannable, epsecially in a tournament, which tries to make things profesinal, and esp. where money is involved. | ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
imagine trying to run a league if everyone dicked around (for example, look at bw's former ladders) - nothing would get done, and it would fail. thats why TSL's success hinges on the community | ||
|
tehsex
296 Posts
 | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
Shiv and 0z are spectators, bitching from the comfort of their own chairs with little to no experience actually dealing with what we have to. They and G5 think the ban reasons were weak, we in the administration know the reasons were strong. We just disagree, and fortunately for we are the ones making the decisions, not them. This is the last thing I'm saying about this subject. Far too much of my life in the last week has been wasted resolving and caring about a small number of people who cause a disproportionately large amount of trouble. We didn't HAVE to ban G5, just like we didn't have to spend 10 hours a day pro-actively seting up a cross-site catching of hackers through flag's method, or spend countless hours investigating abuse incidents on the ladder. All of that would be much easier to just ignore, let everyone play, and ban noone. Surely nobody would have blamed us if that was the case, given how much effort had to be expended to do all of that. There will always be people completely dissatisfied, who will find complaints and whine about virtually anything. Be glad these people are not running your tournament, because true improvement and progress will never come from them. | ||
|
tehsex
296 Posts
answer this " so the rule is max 9 games... if there are 10 u remove the 10th game, yes ? then remove chosen's last game vs david where he won. they played 10 games in the same day. he will get disqualified if u follow the same policy as in ultraling's case." and why not disq lzgamer also ? | ||
|
Ota Solgryn
Denmark2011 Posts
Even the koreans dodged him? I find that hard to believe... | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 22 2008 18:38 Ota Solgryn wrote: So what G5 is basically saying is that he could find noone to play with? Even the koreans dodged him? I find that hard to believe... shiiiiiiiiit | ||
|
sasal
Germany74 Posts
i dont know how you are positioned to this cases. put try to put this exact rule phrase away for one moment and go inside yourself and think if the situation of chosen is comparable with that from ultraling. chosen an american progamer played 10 times vs squall an spanish progamer. both win and loses vs eachother. do you really think there is one possible reason for abuse or rule breaking to intentionally play 10 games instead of 9 vs squal ?! how is this comparable with someone who played on the first and second page almost every game vs a obvious weaker compatriot and clanmate beside some rule jumping? in a german forum we ones talked about mondragon played often vs white_ra and one was a iccup admin. he explained to us this rule is more a guideline than an exact rule phrase. So if there is a looking for an abuse it also always depends on the situation and discretion of the admin. dont know if i can explain it good in english but even in front of court the judge got discretionary powers till one day there might be cases in the past that they can use as guideline. so in ultraling there is a logic to consider a intentionally abuse. in chosen vs david this doesnt make any sense. but thats just my opinion. for me is enough that i can see hotbid and all the staff take decisions very serious and i am thankful to all the energy they spend to make this event as fair as possible. so i could also live with decisions i couldnt agree as i see they really took it serious. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
Shiv
France447 Posts
On April 22 2008 18:14 Hot_Bid wrote: G5, Shiv, 0z, are people that simply disagree with our judgment. Shiv and 0z are spectators, bitching from the comfort of their own chairs with little to no experience actually dealing with what we have to. They and G5 think the ban reasons were weak, we in the administration know the reasons were strong. We just disagree, and fortunately for we are the ones making the decisions, not them. This is the last thing I'm saying about this subject. Far too much of my life in the last week has been wasted resolving and caring about a small number of people who cause a disproportionately large amount of trouble. We didn't HAVE to ban G5, just like we didn't have to spend 10 hours a day pro-actively seting up a cross-site catching of hackers through flag's method, or spend countless hours investigating abuse incidents on the ladder. All of that would be much easier to just ignore, let everyone play, and ban noone. Surely nobody would have blamed us if that was the case, given how much effort had to be expended to do all of that. There will always be people completely dissatisfied, who will find complaints and whine about virtually anything. Be glad these people are not running your tournament, because true improvement and progress will never come from them. Wait up here. I made remarks about this decision. I "complained" over a moronic comment made by superiorwolf over G5's statement that i found educated and deserved. Now here's an other remark: I found it very comfortable to go with the "we've done so much good", "people like us for that" hence "everybody agrees on our every decision" kind of logic. I personnally respect no one more than the TL.net administration for the amount of work they've done all these years and have thanked it many times, but I simply disagree with this decision. I'm pretty sure we're not happy fews on this case either. I expressed myself with moderation, now if you want to label this as "bitching", me as a "completely dissatisfied" whiner, do as you please. That's cheap, ad hominem and probably a good way to not paying attention to people's points. I intend to keep expressing myself whenever it pleases me on these matters. If you can't sort moderate comments from rants then yes, administration on this site must be hell for you. The day TL.net only wishes for comments that agree with its every staff members, I won't be a burden for long. | ||
|
0z
Luxembourg877 Posts
Fine, the ladder looks great until now (really). No further comments from me. Just think if maybe improvement and progress don't somtimes come from people who don't just say 'Bravo' all the time. And yeah, i have a comfortable chair, I hope that's not a problem. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
Understand that our decisions here concern much more than what the public is aware of. G5 has repeatedly shown himself to be an abuser of the system, and that will not be allowed in this tournament. His "framing" of Mistrzzz itself should be enough to warrant a ban, but we decided that perhaps our initial judgement was overly harsh so we should give him another chance. He repayed this by constantly trying to find ways to give himself an unfair advantage in the tournament. He is fortunate that this is only a disqualification, and not a permanent ban from all future TL events. If the opening post does not make this clear, I apologize. tehsex, we are looking into the matter, but don't worry, our rules apply equally to all players, no matter who they are. 0z, as I explained earlier, we did not ban G5 because we do not like him. What you are doing is pointless though, and I suggest that you stop using our wording to find secondary meanings to what we said. The abuse at the end alone "does not warrant a ban" according to Kennigit, but the sum of all G5's actions do. He has shown that he will use any way possible to qualify for the ladder, and there has been many minor abuses by him in the past. I ask that you stop trying to "interpret" our words, and simply take them at face value. All of us are heavily swamped with work (both for the TSL and in private), and we cannot spend hours making sure that all our posts can only be interpreted in one way. Accept our posts on face value, and trust that we do not make any decision lightly. | ||
| ||
