|
|
|
The players need more money (or money at all). Everybody is screaming esports, but the most important part, the players (except a few), just don't earn enough to make a real and solid living.
|
On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc.
What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.
There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect?
"But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification."
If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots.
|
On July 16 2012 20:40 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. No, I defend it because I don't think anyone should really care what people want to spend their money on. Also, when the number one argument is how leveling accounts degrades the integrity of GM what the fuck else do you expect to hear in response? GM IS very abusable, REGARDLESS of leveling accounts. It's an issue with GM, and the value everyone is placing in it. Comparison isn't relevant. Also, in general everyone needs to stop mentioning pro players, they aren't all pro players offering it.
I don't think you understand my point. My point is that I feel that ladder should and could mean something. Just like in the chess world, your FIDE point ranking is rather important. The difficulty is making sure that the person playing behind the account is the person they claim to be. In theory, would it be possible to make GM meaningful, just like a chess grandmaster rating is meaningful?
Re: the bolded part. It does matter if it's against the rules and hurts others.
|
On July 16 2012 20:45 InfusedTT.DaZe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 19:52 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 19:50 .Sic. wrote:On July 16 2012 19:40 Epoch wrote:
Yea, you're right about one thing. I am thinking "Who cares?". Seriously who gives a fuck, if some fool wants to pay someone to level their account it's no big deal. Maybe you should spend more time playing and improving if it really bothers you instead of caring about people who have artificial ranks. What if I said I cared? o_O Then I would ask you why, you would respond with some shit and I would promptly dismantle your arguments. i want to get into gm but its full of hackers and cheaters(who level the account), argue against this one and no, im not gonna become as good as nerchio to get into gm, thats why gm has 200 spots, you don't need to be as good as a top european pro to be gm, nonetheless if you are not you might as well say goodbye to it because only one of those could legitimately get into gm by beating hackers and account levelers.Sad but true, gm is retarded!
Uh well sir, if you want to get to GM and you can't make it in because of..... what? Not good enough, don't wanna put the work in? Like what do you expect? A free ticket to GM for some reason? I really don't get it. It doesn't matter if there are some or many hackers. If you don't possess the ability to get to GM then you don't deserve to be in GM it's ridiculously simple. There are cheaters in every sport and legit players still rise to the top. If you aren't legit what do you want, like something for free? lol get real
|
On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots.
Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree?
I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK.
Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that?
|
The players earn money, and the consumers don't really gain anything, except bragging rights I guess?
This shouldn't be on the list of top problems with SC2 or eSports.
|
I kinda think its a problem since it makes it harder for up and coming player to get their name out. After all being in GM league means something, and i think it makes things a lot easier when looking for teams ^^
|
On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that?
Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous.
|
I don't see a problem there, tbh. For some people GM is just a shining icon and most people just dont care about it, since they want a good practice. So if someone wants a shining icon, even tho they're a platinum level or whatsoever, I don't care. Everyone is trying to make money from the possibilities they got.
Most of people are saying GM is retarted, because they simply just cannot get in, that's a fact.
|
On July 16 2012 16:41 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 16:40 Tachion wrote:
I'm sorry for skimping around the main issue, but what compels people to pay for this in the first place? So they can brag to ignorant friends about how good they are? It seems like it's the only advantage since those GM accounts won't stay at GM level for very long right?
No, the problem is that you can stay in GM as long as your bonus pool doesn't exceed a certain threshold. So if this person stays active, he will have a bad record, but he will not get kicked out of GM, even if he's record is 10 wins and 200 losses.
Also, if he had his account leveled near the end of the season, he can camp on his rating until the season ends and stay in GM.
|
On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous.
No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack.
|
On July 16 2012 21:06 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous. No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack.
lol? maybe because your league in sc2 doesn't matter and things pertaining to real life and careers and whatnot are more important?
alot of you guys seemed to have missed the memo, life isn't fair, it sucks and then you die. get over it. if you want to make a difference in the world, even the score a little, you certainly can. but this is where you chose to focus your energy? with all your arguments and values you think that this is a worthy cause? this issue doesn't matter at all.
|
On July 16 2012 21:10 Epoch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous. No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack. lol? maybe because your league in sc2 doesn't matter and things pertaining to real life and careers and whatnot are more important?
By that logic, if the ladder doesn't matter, why even have a ladder at all? This sort of abdication and apathy is self-perpetuating, ladder means nothing because it's rampant with cheaters and hackers, and we should do nothing about cheaters and hackers because ladder means nothing. So why bother banning maphackers?
This is a competitive game, epeen does matter.
|
On July 16 2012 21:01 Tailss wrote:
I kinda think its a problem since it makes it harder for up and coming player to get their name out. After all being in GM league means something, and i think it makes things a lot easier when looking for teams ^^
I never thought it meant anything. There are many pros that are not in GM. And vice versa there are many players in GM that have and will never win anything and are no pros.
The whole GM thing with players staying in for a whole season no matter how bad they play and great players being kicked out because they didnt play for some time and GM being full of smurf account always meant that it was just nonsense.
Just like the whole ladder system with the ladder points is nonsense. Only thing that counts is MMR / ELO, which for some strange reason Blizzard decided to not show.
Btw, why is it ok for GM players to have smurfs in GM but not smurfs they have been paid for? To me it makes no difference.
|
do you people just like pick a side, and stick to it? this isn't debate team. you can alter your views with the light of new information. there's no reason to like constantly try to reinforce your points that don't even make sense in the first place.
you seriously think someone getting a job over someone more qualified is equally important as this? i guess all matters in the world are just equal then and everything can be compared with everything else? because its all equal? lol get real.
|
On July 16 2012 21:06 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous. No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack.
So what is the reward for this player for being in the "highest skilled league" in the game . He get's nothing for it. Also do you want to ban smurfs too. Smurfs also take spots away from other players.
Overall i don't think the GM league is very well structured, but that's blizzards fault.
|
I can honestly say that I am proud of most of the responses in this thread for once. It demonstrates a maturity in thought process that the majority are unconcerned that a few idiots are being parted from their money. The simple fact is that someone leveled won't stay in there long for obvious reasons. It is a self correcting problem.
|
On topic: I think this is stupid, people put way too much meaning into GM. It is obvious that there are a lot of accounts there that should not be there. However, I agree with those saying that this is bad since it takes up spots from those deserving. I would hope that accounts that are levelled gets removed, but I think that Blizz might not really be able to do very much. This is even more difficult to manage than people cheating through hacking etc.
Off topic: Yeah, go ahead - I approve.. 
On July 16 2012 18:01 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Nuked
User was warned for this post
Not sure if I'm allowed to nuke the warning as well, anyone?
|
I am probably supposed to be against it - not that i have a technical reason no to. But correcting it would probably do more harm than good. This issue is, in the long run, completly self-correcting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
