|
Hello, all!
It's become quite apparent that many of you are not reading the first post carefully.
Failure to do so in the future will be met with swift punishment. And as always, remember to be civil.
Thanks,
Empyrean. Time stamp: 03:59 KST. |
On May 09 2011 06:18 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:13 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:00 RyanRushia wrote:On May 09 2011 05:58 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2011 04:44 mr.reee wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:
[quote]
Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it.
Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it.
IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? A lot of bold, honorable assumptions about cruncher formed out of thin air. Exactly. Why minimize instead of close? Why not keep the archive of the stream? Esp given cruncher is like 2-40 against idra? Why does cruncher say "lol so obvious what he would do" when its quite obvious that he can't normally keep up? For everybody saying all the evidence points to cruncher NOT cheating.....there IS no evidence pointing to cruncher not cheating. All of the evidence points to him cheating, but none of it shows conclusively. Still, if you take everything into account it's quite obvious what was going on. innocent until proven guilty seems most applicable here You see, the problem with that sentiment is that even though it seems like many people are willing to allow CrunCher to be innocent until proven guilty, the same allowance isn't being provided for IdrA - in fact, it's just the opposite; expressions of malicious intent are being projected onto him without any hard proof, other than "IdrA isn't stupid and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish". See my previous post for elaboration. For the first ban - Idra violated the rules, Cruncher did not. It's as simple as that. For the second ban - I think there is some element of collective guilt here. Idra was punished for the behavior of his fans, which is ironic because he punished his fans in order to get back at TL. I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill, either, but he clearly did want to get back at TL and that's why he "took away the candy," so to speak, from his fans and laid the blame on Chill. I encourage you to read my big post (quoted by someone on this page) since it addresses both your points, I think. As for the second ban, I see that you say "I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill". Exactly. Just as it can't be proven that CrunCher was stream cheating or not, or just as it can't be proven whether or not CrunCher was poking at IdrA hoping for this exact response from him. My point is that we're willing to give CrunCher the benefit of doubt, but we're always interpreting what IdrA does as negatively as possible.
What part of "IdrA said he did it just to piss Chill off" says "IdrA is unfairly being treated as if he was doing this in a negative manner" to you? >.<
|
On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
"It's bad for the community that TL caused Idra to no longer stream" is such a silly argument. People who are suggesting this literally wants Idra to have the ability to hold an entire community hostage even when he's in the wrong. That's just ridiculous to my ears. If Idra threatens to not stream anymore unless Chill gets fired from TL or that Cruncher gets banned from tournaments, are you going to get behind that too? If that's the case, then Idra's fanbase is turning into a cult.
|
On May 09 2011 06:17 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:11 Asparagus wrote:On May 09 2011 05:53 HolyArrow wrote:
I kind of feel like, although IdrA is clearly the one that explicitly broke the rules on TL, CrunCher deserves some blame as well. This feels like one of those situations where one guy kind of dances around the rules to consciously troll another person and generally contribute to the bad blood, with perfect knowledge that the guy he's trolling has a tendency to break rules and insult others. Then, bam, IdrA gets banned when he reacts to CrunCher, while CrunCher walks away scot-free.
Now, with that said, consider all the times IdrA has been banned with the justification that "he's not stupid, he knew what he was saying/doing". For example, during the WeRRa scandal, IdrA posted something like "Oh, that's too bad. Seeing the WeRRa tag was a good way to know you were getting all-inned". People could have easily given him the benefit of doubt that he meant that literally, but many went on to accuse him of hiding inappropriate sexual innuendos in that statement, since "IdrA's not dumb, he knew what he was implying".
Another example would be right now, when mods are saying that even though IdrA didn't explicitly say on his twitter, "Hey guys, I got banned, PM and harass the shit out of Chill to get revenge for me!", his actual twitter post implied exactly that, since IdrA isn't stupid; he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
Now let's look at CrunCher. He's not stupid either - he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was messing around on IdrA's stream. He knew it would generate controversy, and he knew it would piss off IdrA. Essentially, he was consciously trolling. Why do we always assume the worst for IdrA, and not CrunCher, who we all know doesn't exactly have the best relationship with IdrA? Even though CrunCher didn't explicitly break any rules, just as we assumed IdrA "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" as part of the justification (note that I don't say that it's the ENTIRE justification - obviously, part of the punishment is motivated on how IdrA isn't willing to apologize and shows no regret after he was asked directly if he'd change his etiquette) for a good deal of his bans, why don't we assume that CrunCher "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" (deliberately trolling)?
As far as I know, trolling is also punishable bad etiquette. If you hit IdrA with something as big as 90 days, it feels like CrunCher should get a bit of a punishment too, even if as a mere symbolic gesture. Mods, please read this. From Cruncher's side you don't stream snipe someone while your record with him previously stood at 2 wins and 20 losses just to learn and play with a better person, Cruncher does it specifically to piss IdrA off. He admits this in his stream constantly "ahaha nah guys It's fun to troll IdrA" This alone is considered harassment and/or trolling, and since you guys apparently punish people for actions outside of the forum, I don't see how Cruncher won't get any flack from this. What goes on in the Stream CHAT of either is none of Tl's concern, what is of their concern is that Idra posted on Teamliquid(their domain) the insult, hence it concerns Teamliquid. Idra then tweeted to pm chill, guess how you pm chill, you do it via Teamliquid, affecting a Teamliquid moderator. How did they handle outside of the forum when it considers the forum. Cruncher was pmed by Chill, he most likely recieved a warning and he was forced to change his post to explain what sniping means(something which some people still fail to understand), Cruncher on the other hand might have a bad history of BM, he has no history of getting banned on Teamliquid itself, whereas Idra has 2 pages worth of bans. Take this in consideration and it is not hard to see why Idra was banned while Cruncher was not.
combatex being banned for bm'ing in game
|
Obviously this is a thread that isn't really going anywhere, but for what it's worth I feel it's a bad idea to punish someone for getting angry when rocks are thrown at him, then fail to punish the person throwing the rocks.
|
On May 09 2011 06:11 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 05:53 HolyArrow wrote:
I kind of feel like, although IdrA is clearly the one that explicitly broke the rules on TL, CrunCher deserves some blame as well. This feels like one of those situations where one guy kind of dances around the rules to consciously troll another person and generally contribute to the bad blood, with perfect knowledge that the guy he's trolling has a tendency to break rules and insult others. Then, bam, IdrA gets banned when he reacts to CrunCher, while CrunCher walks away scot-free.
Now, with that said, consider all the times IdrA has been banned with the justification that "he's not stupid, he knew what he was saying/doing". For example, during the WeRRa scandal, IdrA posted something like "Oh, that's too bad. Seeing the WeRRa tag was a good way to know you were getting all-inned". People could have easily given him the benefit of doubt that he meant that literally, but many went on to accuse him of hiding inappropriate sexual innuendos in that statement, since "IdrA's not dumb, he knew what he was implying".
Another example would be right now, when mods are saying that even though IdrA didn't explicitly say on his twitter, "Hey guys, I got banned, PM and harass the shit out of Chill to get revenge for me!", his actual twitter post implied exactly that, since IdrA isn't stupid; he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
Now let's look at CrunCher. He's not stupid either - he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was messing around on IdrA's stream. He knew it would generate controversy, and he knew it would piss off IdrA. Essentially, he was consciously trolling. Why do we always assume the worst for IdrA, and not CrunCher, who we all know doesn't exactly have the best relationship with IdrA? Even though CrunCher didn't explicitly break any rules, just as we assumed IdrA "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" as part of the justification (note that I don't say that it's the ENTIRE justification - obviously, part of the punishment is motivated on how IdrA isn't willing to apologize and shows no regret after he was asked directly if he'd change his etiquette) for a good deal of his bans, why don't we assume that CrunCher "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" (deliberately trolling)?
As far as I know, trolling is also punishable bad etiquette. If you hit IdrA with something as big as 90 days, it feels like CrunCher should get a bit of a punishment too, even if as a mere symbolic gesture. Mods, please read this. From Cruncher's side you don't stream snipe someone while your record with him previously stood at 2 wins and 20 losses just to learn and play with a better person, Cruncher does it specifically to piss IdrA off. He admits this in his stream constantly "ahaha nah guys It's fun to troll IdrA" This alone is considered harassment and/or trolling, and since you guys apparently punish people for actions outside of the forum, I don't see how Cruncher won't get any flack from this.
I couldn't agree more with this post.. It sums up everything.
|
I completely agree with the ban.
There is no reason why IdrA should be treated differently than any one of us. I bet if one of us had done what IdrA did, the same thing would have occurred to us.
WP TL!! Keep the great job up!
|
I agree with this choice. As many pro anything he is setting a bad example for E sports and for his team. A Lot of people like Greg feel they can get away with anything. For chill banning him for two days Not a big deal. He was warned talked to and the choice was made. At that point Greg should of kept is mouth shut. For idra (greg) to tell people to harass people is wrong! And if it wasn't for it being on the computer its against the law. Now many states have and are adopting cyber bulling. I enjoy watching Streams I want them fun and interactive. The mods work to hard to be Bothered with stuff like this. MODS you are doing a great JOB!! THANK YOU!
Sincerely
Whitereaper
|
On May 09 2011 06:18 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:13 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:00 RyanRushia wrote:On May 09 2011 05:58 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2011 04:44 mr.reee wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:
[quote]
Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it.
Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it.
IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? A lot of bold, honorable assumptions about cruncher formed out of thin air. Exactly. Why minimize instead of close? Why not keep the archive of the stream? Esp given cruncher is like 2-40 against idra? Why does cruncher say "lol so obvious what he would do" when its quite obvious that he can't normally keep up? For everybody saying all the evidence points to cruncher NOT cheating.....there IS no evidence pointing to cruncher not cheating. All of the evidence points to him cheating, but none of it shows conclusively. Still, if you take everything into account it's quite obvious what was going on. innocent until proven guilty seems most applicable here You see, the problem with that sentiment is that even though it seems like many people are willing to allow CrunCher to be innocent until proven guilty, the same allowance isn't being provided for IdrA - in fact, it's just the opposite; expressions of malicious intent are being projected onto him without any hard proof, other than "IdrA isn't stupid and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish". See my previous post for elaboration. For the first ban - Idra violated the rules, Cruncher did not. It's as simple as that. For the second ban - I think there is some element of collective guilt here. Idra was punished for the behavior of his fans, which is ironic because he punished his fans in order to get back at TL. I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill, either, but he clearly did want to get back at TL and that's why he "took away the candy," so to speak, from his fans and laid the blame on Chill. I encourage you to read my big post (quoted by someone on this page) since it addresses both your points, I think. As for the second ban, I see that you say "I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill". Exactly. Just as it can't be proven that CrunCher was stream cheating or not, or just as it can't be proven whether or not CrunCher was poking at IdrA hoping for this exact response from him. My point is that we're willing to give CrunCher the benefit of doubt, but we're always interpreting what IdrA does as negatively as possible.
I was responding to your big post. I think your argument is flawed, and the reason is given in my post. What Idra did is much more straight-forward than what Cruncher did. The evidence is there, whereas it isn't there for Cruncher.
|
On May 09 2011 06:13 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:00 RyanRushia wrote:On May 09 2011 05:58 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2011 04:44 mr.reee wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
[quote]
You haven't been reading. Ghosting is not fine. There is no reason to assume Cruncher was ghosting, and even less proof of it.
Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it. Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it. IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? A lot of bold, honorable assumptions about cruncher formed out of thin air. Exactly. Why minimize instead of close? Why not keep the archive of the stream? Esp given cruncher is like 2-40 against idra? Why does cruncher say "lol so obvious what he would do" when its quite obvious that he can't normally keep up? For everybody saying all the evidence points to cruncher NOT cheating.....there IS no evidence pointing to cruncher not cheating. All of the evidence points to him cheating, but none of it shows conclusively. Still, if you take everything into account it's quite obvious what was going on. innocent until proven guilty seems most applicable here You see, the problem with that sentiment is that even though it seems like many people are willing to allow CrunCher to be innocent until proven guilty, the same allowance isn't being provided for IdrA - in fact, it's just the opposite; expressions of malicious intent are being projected onto him without any hard proof, other than "IdrA isn't stupid and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish". See my previous post for elaboration. For the first ban - Idra violated the rules, Cruncher did not. It's as simple as that. For the second ban - I think there is some element of collective guilt here. Idra was punished for the behavior of his fans, which is ironic because he punished his fans in order to get back at TL. I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill, either, but he clearly did want to get back at TL and that's why he "took away the candy," so to speak, from his fans and laid the blame on Chill.
There are two possibilities: either Idra knew that, by making that Tweet, he would get his fans to harass Chill, or Idra did not. If it's the first case, then it's obviously malicious.
If it's the second case, then Idra has displayed recklessness and terrible forethought. What did he expect his fans to do when he explicitly told them to PM Chill if they were upset? Did he expect his upset fans to show restraint?
So either Idra was being a deliberate jerk, or he was just woefully irresponsible with his fanbase. Neither is appropriate behavior.
|
On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off.
Oh, okay. That just throws off most of my post, since I was assuming that nobody knew the exact intent of IdrA's twitter post. But since he explicitly said that it was to annoy Chill, I guess there isn't much of anything to say anymore. The only sad thing is that IdrA pretty much dug his own grave by admitting that he was trying to annoy Chill - if he didn't do that, there would still be an argument for the IdrA/CrunCher benefit-of-doubt double standard.
Still, I feel like CrunCher is constantly trying to get a rise out of IdrA, and it's quite deliberate. But he does it dancing around explicitly breaking any rules, so he gets away with it. That just kind of irks me, since I wish people in authority would just see right through people like that and punish them anyway. Feels like a situation in high school where Kid A verbally abuses Kid B, Kid B snaps and punches Kid A, and Kid B gets the big punishment while Kid A completely gets away with it. Happened quite a few times back when I was high school (not to me, but to some friends of mine), and I always felt it was unjust.
|
Should just lock everything Idra for a while until this blows over like it always does. This isnt the first time Idra has been banned for a long time. Weather its right or wrong nothing you can say with changes TLs might, that was up to them and Idra to figure out. Good to know that idra wants his stream up on TL still since in the two day he said not to put it up.
|
Well I think its fair and Greg fans should be lucky he is even considered slightly special treatment. If it was any other person I think they would have been immediatly IP banned.
|
On May 09 2011 06:22 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:18 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:13 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:00 RyanRushia wrote:On May 09 2011 05:58 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2011 04:44 mr.reee wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:
[quote]
Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? A lot of bold, honorable assumptions about cruncher formed out of thin air. Exactly. Why minimize instead of close? Why not keep the archive of the stream? Esp given cruncher is like 2-40 against idra? Why does cruncher say "lol so obvious what he would do" when its quite obvious that he can't normally keep up? For everybody saying all the evidence points to cruncher NOT cheating.....there IS no evidence pointing to cruncher not cheating. All of the evidence points to him cheating, but none of it shows conclusively. Still, if you take everything into account it's quite obvious what was going on. innocent until proven guilty seems most applicable here You see, the problem with that sentiment is that even though it seems like many people are willing to allow CrunCher to be innocent until proven guilty, the same allowance isn't being provided for IdrA - in fact, it's just the opposite; expressions of malicious intent are being projected onto him without any hard proof, other than "IdrA isn't stupid and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish". See my previous post for elaboration. For the first ban - Idra violated the rules, Cruncher did not. It's as simple as that. For the second ban - I think there is some element of collective guilt here. Idra was punished for the behavior of his fans, which is ironic because he punished his fans in order to get back at TL. I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill, either, but he clearly did want to get back at TL and that's why he "took away the candy," so to speak, from his fans and laid the blame on Chill. I encourage you to read my big post (quoted by someone on this page) since it addresses both your points, I think. As for the second ban, I see that you say "I don't think it can be proven that Idra intended hundreds of people to spam Chill". Exactly. Just as it can't be proven that CrunCher was stream cheating or not, or just as it can't be proven whether or not CrunCher was poking at IdrA hoping for this exact response from him. My point is that we're willing to give CrunCher the benefit of doubt, but we're always interpreting what IdrA does as negatively as possible. I was responding to your big post. I think your argument is flawed, and the reason is given in my post. What Idra did is much more straight-forward than what Cruncher did. The evidence is there, whereas it isn't there for Cruncher.
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:21 tGFuRy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:11 Asparagus wrote:On May 09 2011 05:53 HolyArrow wrote:
I kind of feel like, although IdrA is clearly the one that explicitly broke the rules on TL, CrunCher deserves some blame as well. This feels like one of those situations where one guy kind of dances around the rules to consciously troll another person and generally contribute to the bad blood, with perfect knowledge that the guy he's trolling has a tendency to break rules and insult others. Then, bam, IdrA gets banned when he reacts to CrunCher, while CrunCher walks away scot-free.
Now, with that said, consider all the times IdrA has been banned with the justification that "he's not stupid, he knew what he was saying/doing". For example, during the WeRRa scandal, IdrA posted something like "Oh, that's too bad. Seeing the WeRRa tag was a good way to know you were getting all-inned". People could have easily given him the benefit of doubt that he meant that literally, but many went on to accuse him of hiding inappropriate sexual innuendos in that statement, since "IdrA's not dumb, he knew what he was implying".
Another example would be right now, when mods are saying that even though IdrA didn't explicitly say on his twitter, "Hey guys, I got banned, PM and harass the shit out of Chill to get revenge for me!", his actual twitter post implied exactly that, since IdrA isn't stupid; he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
Now let's look at CrunCher. He's not stupid either - he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was messing around on IdrA's stream. He knew it would generate controversy, and he knew it would piss off IdrA. Essentially, he was consciously trolling. Why do we always assume the worst for IdrA, and not CrunCher, who we all know doesn't exactly have the best relationship with IdrA? Even though CrunCher didn't explicitly break any rules, just as we assumed IdrA "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" as part of the justification (note that I don't say that it's the ENTIRE justification - obviously, part of the punishment is motivated on how IdrA isn't willing to apologize and shows no regret after he was asked directly if he'd change his etiquette) for a good deal of his bans, why don't we assume that CrunCher "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" (deliberately trolling)?
As far as I know, trolling is also punishable bad etiquette. If you hit IdrA with something as big as 90 days, it feels like CrunCher should get a bit of a punishment too, even if as a mere symbolic gesture. Mods, please read this. From Cruncher's side you don't stream snipe someone while your record with him previously stood at 2 wins and 20 losses just to learn and play with a better person, Cruncher does it specifically to piss IdrA off. He admits this in his stream constantly "ahaha nah guys It's fun to troll IdrA" This alone is considered harassment and/or trolling, and since you guys apparently punish people for actions outside of the forum, I don't see how Cruncher won't get any flack from this. I couldn't agree more with this post.. It sums up everything.
How does that "sums up everything"? It doesn't even tell half the story.
|
On May 09 2011 06:21 WhiteReaper wrote:
I agree with this choice. As many pro anything he is setting a bad example for E sports and for his team. A Lot of people like Greg feel they can get away with anything. For chill banning him for two days Not a big deal. He was warned talked to and the choice was made. At that point Greg should of kept is mouth shut. For idra (greg) to tell people to harass people is wrong! And if it wasn't for it being on the computer its against the law. Now many states have and are adopting cyber bulling. I enjoy watching Streams I want them fun and interactive. The mods work to hard to be Bothered with stuff like this. MODS you are doing a great JOB!! THANK YOU!
Sincerely
Whitereaper
setting a bad example? because he has a personality?
|
On May 09 2011 06:19 PrincessLeila wrote:
All the love around a guy like Idra is scary.
What's great about a guy that acts like a 6 year old ?
A guy that cant admit his losses... And supposed to be a PRO ??
This guy have no respect for anything, he thinks he is so great that he can shit on anyone.
He should have been perma banned a long time ago.
He's a great Zerg player. Being "pro" doesn't mean you have be a princess, being "pro" means you are good at this game called StarCraft II. Idra has been playing this game for a very long time and his efforts have rewarded him with his wins in recent tournaments. That in itself is respectable.
|
On May 09 2011 06:21 carloselcoco wrote:
I completely agree with the ban.
There is no reason why IdrA should be treated differently than any one of us. I bet if one of us had done what IdrA did, the same thing would have occurred to us.
WP TL!! Keep the great job up!
Actually, he is treated differently than most of us. He's done things that would get the average user permabanned multiple times.
|
On May 09 2011 06:25 goddess wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:21 WhiteReaper wrote:
I agree with this choice. As many pro anything he is setting a bad example for E sports and for his team. A Lot of people like Greg feel they can get away with anything. For chill banning him for two days Not a big deal. He was warned talked to and the choice was made. At that point Greg should of kept is mouth shut. For idra (greg) to tell people to harass people is wrong! And if it wasn't for it being on the computer its against the law. Now many states have and are adopting cyber bulling. I enjoy watching Streams I want them fun and interactive. The mods work to hard to be Bothered with stuff like this. MODS you are doing a great JOB!! THANK YOU!
Sincerely
Whitereaper setting a bad example? because he has a personality?
Reeks of fanboyism. Everybody has personality.
|
Awesome has a name; it's spelled "I d r a". Long live the Gracken!
That being said. I love Chill too.
I hope the two of you can play nice in the future.
|
On May 09 2011 05:06 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 05:05 S.O.L.I.D. wrote:On May 09 2011 05:00 Johnranger-123 wrote:On May 09 2011 04:52 mr.reee wrote:On May 09 2011 04:43 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 04:37 mr.reee wrote:On May 08 2011 07:00 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 06:59 shmee wrote:On May 08 2011 06:55 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 06:53 shmee wrote:
I completely understand banning idra for his incendiary behavior, but has Team Liquid taken any action to punish Cruncher for ghosting idra's stream, which was the thing that started this whole mess? Does teamliquid have any kind of statement in regards to that? There's nothing wrong with joining the ladder at the same time as someone else. What action could we possibly take against that? So if you were streaming, and you got matched up against idra, and he magically knew everything you were doing only to find out later that he was checking your stream to see everything you were doing, you wouldn't have any problem with that? No. I also find great hypocrisy reading through his warnings and bans from TL. So many of them are for bm and insulting posts, but most of them include bm and insults back at Idra. What do you mean? Reading through the image on page 1 (http://i.imgur.com/cULBN.jpg) with a history of TL warnings/bans to idra, many of them (the team liquid messages) are insulting, and bad mannered. For example, "All 3 of you need to grow up," or, "we would still like you to use a toilet before when to the bathroom," or, "use your freetime to do something other than stare at a screen." There is one message from TeamLiquid to idra calling him a douchebag. But how can you argue that he wasn't being a douchebag. The way I see it, TL mods arent meant to ban people in the most PC way possible, they are there to ban people, thats it. How they do it and how they put their point across is entirely up to the mod. Just look at the ban thread in the closed forums, they treat everyone the same, you only care cause its idra. The point is NOT whether or not IdrA was being a douchebag (which he clearly was), it's that if you are a moderator, you should not be saying that while you're banning someone. Commentary on a post, if you're a mod, is unnecessary and uncalled for. You can ban someone by simply stating a reason and letting it be. Adding in personal bias just makes a moderator look bad. Ok, so can we all acknowledge the fact that he may have made a mistake and move on now?
It's not just one thing though, it's a quite common occurrence for reasons like that to be posted in the ban thread, and it's not just one moderator.
The rules and the rules alone should be what dictates a ban, and the specific rule broken by a post should be the only necessary explanation for a ban, at least in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
