|
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. |
It's been close to a year now that I've been registered here on TL. My opinion thus won't be the most important, but I'd like it to be heard anyway. Over this year I've followed pretty much every SC related headline and much of the pro gamer activity on this board.
Idra should long ago have been permamently banned from this site. There's some truth to the idea of "bad boys making things interesting" - but Idra's not a bad boy. He's a disgrace to this community. We cherish SC/BW and SC2 as games of sportsmanship and manner. This probably won't apply to everyone's battle.net experience, but SC/SC2 still beats the hell out of most other gaming communities in that regard.
Ill-mannered players like Greg spurn everything this community stands for (ecept for skill). And I don't see how his skill and occasional strategy forum input can compensate for the horrible role model he is. His abilities in-game can be respected (I do, when he delivers), but his behaviour should be universally punished instead of being condoned.
Time and time again I see him getting temp banned for things regular players would long have been IP-banned. I don't fathom how, considering his history, he gets away with a temporary ban after mobilizing his fans to harass someone, and especially Chill of all people. All this after he's insulted this site's staff, fellow players and users countless times over the course of years, with a continuity that's just sad.
Do this whole community a favor and ban him. Right now he's once again toying with TL, deliberately breaking rules and getting away with it yet again. A 90 day temp ban might be the the last thing before a permanent ban, but still, he's been given a chance when he has lost the right to receive yet another on a long time ago.
|
On May 08 2011 07:42 Tranqje wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:40 Beyonder wrote:On May 08 2011 07:34 Tranqje wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 SwordfishConspiracy wrote:On May 08 2011 07:30 Tranqje wrote:
I tought your policy was not to take actions based on assumption. In fact, that was stated multiple times in this topic. So unless Idra literally said to a moderator he asked people to harras and spam chill that is nowhere to be seen in his twitter post.
If he did not do that then you pretty much banned him on an assumption?
What do you mean? He literally said that on his Twitter "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you" http://twitter.com/#!/idrajit/status/66276394849673216 It sais to PM Chill if you're upset because of his ban. it doesn't say to spam and harras him. for all we know he could have encouraged a friendly debate. is that a load of crap? most likely, yes. but you can't really prove it ^^ Trust me, we can. This was a deliberate vindictive reaction. Fair enough then 
Sarcasm and playing the devil's advocate doesn't work on the internet, unfortunately. I got you
|
On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- 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:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. 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? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST.
Regarding point 5, IdrA had plenty of reason to suspect that Cruncher stream cheated, and was justified in making the accusation. If you see someone standing over a dead body, holding a gun, and bullet wounds in the corpse, you have every right to think they had something to do with the body ending up in that condition. To simply say, "Well, he says he didn't do it, and I didn't see it, so I guess I'm out of line for making the accusation." is stupid.
Cruncher had the stream open. Cruncher blind countered IdrA's build. Cruncher isn't half the player IdrA is. Pretty reasonable to suspect he used the stream to his advantage.
|
e: nvm, theyve done it
User was warned for this post
|
On May 08 2011 07:33 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:23 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:19 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:18 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:15 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:13 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:11 pStar 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:
[quote]
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. This is honestly ridiculous. How is that ok in anyway? How is what? There's literally zero proof Cruncher was watching Idra's stream while playing. The only proof is that he had the stream open, which he's admitted to. But surely that makes it pretty darn obvious that he was cheating?? Surely it doesn't prove anything. Cruncher has dual monitors..i mean you are basically saying "the stream was open right there in front of him but we can't prove his eyes were pointed in that direction" This, i just dont believe that alongside crunchers BM with building incident that he didn't screen cheat. Believing and proving are two different things. No judge would put someone in prison because he "was probably doing something bad". Either there is a proof or not, and it's up to the claimant to deliver the definitive proof.
That's now how the law works. An attorney doesn't need 100% proof, there is no such thing as the absolute proof. He needs to convince the judge that the event happened in the way he claims it did.
It's like having your parents walking in your room when you're standing there, pants down and a girl is lying on your bed, naked. Sure, there's no 100% proof you were about to have intercourse, but the judge is not gonna say "Well he was obviously going to pee in the trash can. You can't prove otherwise".
A decision in court is based on the interpretation of the evidence that is brought to the judge. And same thing here, with the stream incident.
edit: I don't necessarily want to take sides here, because as I said, decisions are made based on interpretation, which is up to the mods. I just can't stand argumentation based on misinformation, as is spread so vastly in this thread.
|
And I want to add that if Idra is punished for harassing Chill and cruncher, then how is cruncher's stream sniping (when he knew idra wanted to commentate that week) not harassment
|
On May 08 2011 07:42 Jacuzzi wrote:This ban is long overdue. Idra is supposed to be a leader for foreigner zerg players and he acts like a fucking child. Maybe a longer timeout is what he needs. 
Obviously a longer timeout wont change his behaviour at all, he doesnt care if hes banned as long as he can get the stream viewers that come from TL.net
|
On May 08 2011 07:24 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:22 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:21 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:19 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:18 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:15 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:13 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:11 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:00 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 06:59 shmee wrote:
[quote]
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. This is honestly ridiculous. How is that ok in anyway? How is what? There's literally zero proof Cruncher was watching Idra's stream while playing. The only proof is that he had the stream open, which he's admitted to. But surely that makes it pretty darn obvious that he was cheating?? Surely it doesn't prove anything. Cruncher has dual monitors..i mean you are basically saying "the stream was open right there in front of him but we can't prove his eyes were pointed in that direction" I'm saying we don't act on accusations without evidence. Well i'm giving you evidence short of the direction his eyes were facing He said the stream was muted and minimized.
You're saying that there is no evidence of ghosting. But there simply is, which you've admitted yourself.
The case for Cruncher cheating is:
Cruncher has dual monitors (this I don't personally know, but from the sounds of it is already known).
Cruncher has the stream open for the duration of the game.
Cruncher had suspicious behavior in-game.
The defense for Cruncher is:
he says that he had the stream muted and minimized.
Is this not quite strong evidence?
Suppose Cruncher was caught having maphack on his computer. You ask him about it, and he says, "oh, i just have maphack because I only use it for custom games with friends. I don't use it for ladder." Would you declare that there is no evidence against him then?
Suppose Cruncher was taking a test and was caught with a book open with the answers. "Oh, I was just studying for the test beforehand. I wasn't looking at the book." Would you declare that there is no evidence of cheating taking place?
Evidently there is some evidence. As for cheating cases go, it's quite a bit of evidence. Maybe you want to trust Cruncher on his word. That's fine. But don't act like there isn't a good reason to think that he ghosted. After all, the evidence for Cruncher ghosting is enough evidence to cause a student to be declared a cheater on a test.
And I can understand why mods would want to ban Idra for 90 days after his twitter, but take another real-life scenario that we can relate to. Suppose Idra got arrested by a police officer, and he felt it was unjust. He tweets about the incident and asks people to contact the police officer in question if they feel strongly about it. Would that be cause for Idra to be arrested for a longer period of time? I don't think so. It's fine to be upset about an incident and to urge people to contact a figure of authority.
In the end, TL mods can do whatever the hell they like. There isn't a rigorous code they must abide by. They don't have to be consistent in judgments. Personally even though I am a huge Idra fan I can't really fault TL too much for how they handled it.
But you have to admit that there is reason to see why some Idra fans think it's unjust. If similar things were to happen in real life (outside of TL), Cruncher would be the one in legitimate trouble and Idra wouldn't be, with the same kind of evidence.
|
Dang nazgul bringing down the hammer. Guess you have to be consistent though, no matter who the name is behind the ass hole statements.
|
On May 08 2011 07:42 Monolithic- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- 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:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. 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? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST. Nope. You're wrong. If you look at the character of the accused individual it's definitely something he would do. It's all about saving face after his pompous interview. This will go nowhere because there is no way to prove anything even though it's pretty obvious that CrunCher was cheating. The point is IdrA should not receive a ban for being mad about CrunCher being connected to his stream while they are playing.
It's understandable that IdrA was mad, everyone would be if he thought the opponent cheated. The totally valid reason for the ban was imho the wording. If he had expressed himself in a civil manner or expressed it somewhere else (for example on his twitter account), this whole issue wouldn't have started in the first place.
|
On May 08 2011 07:44 scrim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:38 ibreakurface wrote:
Idra is scum, anyone who says he doesn't deserve a ban is being COMPLETELY bias. Looking strictly at the rules idra should have been banned a looooonnnnnngggg time ago. His post quality is horrible considering it is either whining or BMing.
There is no proof of cruncher cheating, he said he had the stream open so he could get into the same game as idra. Calling idra scum isn't worth a ban? Yeah, right, nice moderation. I guess its because you don't have anything against ibreakurface?
This. What's good for the goose, and all that. Calling someone scum seems right on the same level as calling them a waste of life to me.
|
Funny... He was probably only expecting another 2 day ban 
|
People are mad they will get over it. Honestly in SC2 IdrA hasn't helped(posting wise) out the community like he did in BW. The ban was long overdue, and it is not like you can't follow IdrA's games on here.
|
Lol wow Chill post this in idra's stream topic:
He's just being childish and spiteful. Not streaming is just his choice.
continue shoving your foot into your mouth until the community ends up somewhere else.
|
On May 08 2011 07:42 Monolithic- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- 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:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. 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? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST. Nope. You're wrong. If you look at the character of the accused individual it's definitely something he would do. It's all about saving face after his pompous interview. This will go nowhere because there is no way to prove anything even though it's pretty obvious that CrunCher was cheating. The point is IdrA should not receive a ban for being mad about CrunCher being connected to his stream while they are playing.
Yeah, well guess what? Your point is wrong. idrA didn't "receive a ban for being mad about cruncher being connected to his stream while they are playing.". idrA received a ban for making an extremely rude remark about a fellow competitor.
Also, stop spreading false information, that's really wrong of you. Stop saying he cheated when you admit in the same sentence its unprovable.
|
On May 08 2011 07:13 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:11 pStar 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. This is honestly ridiculous. How is that ok in anyway? How is what? There's literally zero proof Cruncher was watching Idra's stream while playing. The only proof is that he had the stream open, which he's admitted to.
there is also zero proof cruncher was not watching idras stream while playing, but the differense between idras side and cruncher side is that idra has evidence, testifiers, and cruncher only has his words, not to mention that cruncher also have a potential motive to do it.
the fact you are so absolutly sure cruncher did not stream cheated idra means you are one of two things:
1. you really hate idra, therefore you only stand for cruncher's defence and ignore IdrA's side in this issue (stateing there was no proof of cruncher cheating, but forgetting there is no proof of him not cheating, even though others provided evidense and testified)
2. you know cruncher personally, therefore trusting his word blindly even though he has no sollid evidense.
|
On May 08 2011 07:42 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:35 Carnagath wrote:
Sorry for participating with my low post count and everything, but does this thread serve any actual purpose other than "emergency Idra-fan pressure release valve"? I'd guess it's partly that, and partly to keep this whole Idra drama bomb out of the longstanding 'Automated Ban List' thread, where it's ontopic, but would swamp all the other discussion for a week.
It's a place for IdrA's anti-fans to rejoice, a place for his rabid fans to be put down (saying ridiculous shit and getting the hammer), and a place for TL to answer sincere questions between all the muck.
Good thread in my opinion. I'm just hoping that the "[Stream] IdrA" thread will settle down now.
|
On May 08 2011 07:34 Tranqje wrote:
It sais to PM Chill if you're upset because of his ban. it doesn't say to spam and harras him. for all we know he could have encouraged a friendly debate. is that a load of crap? most likely, yes. but you can't really prove it ^^
I think the "proof" lies in whatever mountainloads of PMs Chill would have received following that tweet.
And wake the !@#$ up! This is the internet! Are people ever nice on the internet?
|
I think people need to realize just how little this matters. IdrA posts seldom, even when unbanned. When he does post, while there are some funny or informative ones, most of them are usually nothing special.
He's not banned from tournaments. He's not stopping streaming as some sign of protest. TL, while important to the starcraft community, being banned from posting on the forums does not suddenly mean he's a black sheep or incapable of doing other things. I think that also point to the fact that people think he will, "learn a lesson", are incorrect. There's nothing to learn from IdrA's perspective.
|
Idras awesome his BM makes watching more enjoyable
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
