|
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 06:00 RyanRushia wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.
|
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.
If IdrA decides not to stream, it's a loss for his fans. TL gains nothing from his stream, especially now that they've removed the adds from his stream page. Read the OP and at least 5 pages of this thread, and you'll realize that there's actually nothing stopping IdrA from streaming.
|
On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.
Maybe IdrA just wanted to sincerely apologize to Chill using his fanbase to spam his PM box so he could get unbanned from TL right?
Seriously now, I'm a huge IdrA fan but he deserved the ban he'll be back to the same old stuff 3 months from now.
Maybe TL will give him time off for good behavior.
|
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.
|
On May 09 2011 06:08 Varpulis wrote:Read the OP and at least 5 pages of this
thread, and you'll realize that there's actually nothing stopping IdrA from streaming.
Except for the fact that his last streaming session, you know, didn't work too well.
|
|
|
On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.
excpet for the twitter message IdrA made telling people to go spam chill about getting him unbanned or wahtever, in which chill has already stated that it was a vindicative expression
|
Why do people keep bringing up TL losing on IdrA streaming? You don't stream on TL, you stream on a streaming site, in IdrA's case that's Justin.tv.
|
On May 09 2011 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.
|
On May 09 2011 06:12 zeru 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. Like people have been saying, innocent until proven guilty.
Lol. People have been saying that about the cheating allegations but certainly not about trolling.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On May 09 2011 05:58 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.
No, it's not. Innocent until proven guilty.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
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.
|
|
|
seems like its all his fault for just being a troll. GG
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
fairly noted, and of crunchers reasoning for trolling idra via stream sniping? the consequence i feel is different only because his was directed toward TLstaff, while cruncher's actions don't generate such a response.
|
On May 09 2011 05:11 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 04:58 smileyface22 wrote:
While that's to be commended, I happen to disagree with your opinion that TL's success is derived from your forum rules. Effort and philosophy are two different things. However I think it's pretty clear TL is unprepared to evolve as esports evolves and I hope that's the right decision. But that's the thing - our success is derived from the people we've attracted (casters, players, talented staff), which is derived by the quality forums we've always presented. Also, I think it's incredibly naive if you don't think TL is unprepared to evolve, especially if your reason is because of strict forum rules?
Let's see, why do I think TL is unprepared to evolve:
You ban the most popular player in SC2 because of a throw-away comment like "waste of life," after he was provoked which shows you have no grasp of context and instead slam your face into this dogmatic allegiance to forum etiquette which lies completely at odds with how the real world works and the competitive spirit. Furthermore, banning him during his reward of week-long commentary to his fans demonstrates that you don't care about the actual implications your actions have on the community as long as you feel justified in your little moral box. Do you really think anyone gave a rat's-ass about Idra calling Cruncher a waste of life after he arguably ghosted him? I heard worst insults when I was in the 3rd grade (no hyperbole). Your response to this is to enact a ban that affected thousands of his fans far worse than hurt him and had negative, tangible consequences for an nascent audience you are trying to cultivate. Interesting.
You extend this to a 90-day ban because he tells people to PM Chill if his actions upset them. It doesn't matter if 2000 of his fans inundated Chill's PM box with insults/flames. Telling someone to message someone if they don't agree with their actions is not harassment, it's a fundamental principle of free speech/discourse. Even if he knew the response he would generate, people have every right on a PUBLIC FORUM to express their displeasure with an action they do not agree with unless you live in Nazi fucking Germany or the Middle East. If they did not participate in a civil manner you should have banned those people and been done with it. Your ponderous inability to grasp this principle yet proclaim your forums as a model of civility is laughable.
And finally, you reiterate that your forum standards are what have made TL so enduring. For Broodwar, perhaps. But if you removed all forum moderation from this site for 2 months and charted it's traffic during that time, I'm willing to bet it would remain constant or possibly even increase. Why? Because of it's functionality and market saturation. Forum moderation (yes there needs to be some) compared to listed streams or tourney updates or the foothold TL already has is so completely minor. Hell, the fact that Idra's fanclub thread views ridiculously dwarfs every other one, along with Huk's, is simple testimony that people are drawn to players like them. If your audience didn't enjoy Idra's BM and transparency on some level, why flock to him? Players who don't parrot and mimic TL's standard of conduct (Huk trolling Idra in-game at a tourney) are invariably this website's most popular yet TL continues to demand the opposite. And I'm being naive? I would define that as a disconnect and a willing refusal to acknowledge the facts. At any rate, as I said earlier, it's pretty clear all of the above isn't going to change so I'm done here.
User was banned for this post.
For reference, he's this guy:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=138967¤tpage=492#9834
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
