Idra Banned for 90 Days - Page 20

On May 08 2011 07:48 dre2k wrote:
You can call idra scum without getting banned lol. TL is so biased. HuK BM´ing idra is all good I guess, ah well Nazgul has to protect his investment in a suck ass team I guess, except Ret, cause he´s a boss.

User was temp banned for this post.

On May 08 2011 07:55 scrim wrote:
So teamliquid bans people for something that didn't even happen on the forums?
Shouldn't they ban huk then? Huk bmed idra at mlg on shattered temple, making him upset DURING a set. Something like that is NOT acceptable.
But then again, huk is on teamliquid, so he has super priviliges.

Nazgul also bmed idra at mlg dallas. + Show Spoiler + during a set is not acceptable either.
But then again, nazgul is on teamliquid, so he has super priviliges.

NICE MODERATION

On May 08 2011 07:57 Tranqje wrote:


That seems like alot of assuming :p

On May 08 2011 07:45 Frozenserpent wrote:


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.

On May 08 2011 07:57 bibbaly wrote:


So you guys still get ad revenue for listing his stream.

On May 08 2011 07:54 smileyface22 wrote:
For a website whose stated goal is to foster the growth of e-sports, this decision is strange. Banning idra for 90 days only hurts the community infinitely more than it hurts Idra. He has an immense power to draw traffic and viewers and for all the complaints people parrot about his behavior, he's done more to expand the sc2 scene than any other player. I have friends who stopped playing in beta that still tune in to NASL just to see his games. While his 2-day ban could be justified, this just seems like retribution. And considering the history between the two, a lot of people simply think Chill was looking for an excuse to provoke Idra.

On May 08 2011 07:51 Klogon wrote:
First of all, if Cruncher is proven to have cheated, we will take action. We have no problem taking action against even the most high profile of players (ex. Dimaga and TSL2/3) but try to do so with careful deliberation. Please do not think our actions here are simply us spitefully swinging a banhammer. You'd be surprised by the pages of discussions we have of actions that involve high-profile community members, Idra included.

Also, regarding the "harassing".





Idra on his twitter tried to imply that by being banned, he could no longer stream. That was false. And if we assume he knew it was also false (he probably did), we can then assume that he was miliciously misleading his thousands of twitter followers into a rage against Chill. Thus I think it is fair to say Idra did encourage his fans to go harass Chill.

On May 08 2011 07:54 smileyface22 wrote:
For a website whose stated goal is to foster the growth of e-sports, this decision is strange. Banning idra for 90 days only hurts the community infinitely more than it hurts Idra. He has an immense power to draw traffic and viewers and for all the complaints people parrot about his behavior, he's done more to expand the sc2 scene than any other player. I have friends who stopped playing in beta that still tune in to NASL just to see his games. While his 2-day ban could be justified, this just seems like retribution. And considering the history between the two, a lot of people simply think Chill was looking for an excuse to provoke Idra.

Whatever higher standard of forum behavior TL professes to adhere to is off-set by this bizarre aversion toward freedom of speech here. If you disagree with mods, you get banned. Just an extremely odd way to alienate a large portion of your viewers. Oh well, i guess it's a model you can support while there still isn't any competition....