BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[Teugata]

That would be a good point if teams were limited to 7 players. But they can have 11, so missing 2 should not prevent them from playing for an entire week.

It's not up to you to decide if a team could have played or not, they couldn't that's just the way it is. Having to default is already bad enough, it should count towards the penalty duration.

Whether the team played or not these guys were suspended, it's not their fault the team had to forfeit and they would have been benched either way, where is the logic in this exception?

 

[Aeronwen]

It's not up to you to decide if a team could have played or not, they couldn't that's just the way it is. Having to default is already bad enough, it should count towards the penalty duration.

Whether the team played or not these guys were suspended, it's not their fault the team had to forfeit and they would have been benched either way.

Exactly - it is not up to me, or any admin, to decide whether a team could have played or what their motive was in ANY case. We cannot know, and it not our business to pretend we can know, what anyone's intentions were.

We deal only with what actually happened. What happened here was that DM defaulted on a match whilst having players suspended for a rule break..
The usual result of that is that any players suspended for x matches do not have that match count towards their ban.

Had DR been the ones who defaulted then the match would have counted towards DM players suspension - on the principle that teams dont suffer loss because of other teams decisions.

In the past the discussion was usually about whether or not the team which not responsible for the unplayed match would have it count for a ban. Until now I never heard anyone suggest that a team which decided for whatever reason not to play a match had it count towards a suspension.

 

[mrArgentum]

In the end if a team breaks a rule they are responsible for the consequences. Putting pressure on the admins is not OK and is likely to lead to admins resigning or making less than optimum decisions.

Which exactly rule did we break by giving default? You literally put us in this situation by yourself when you banned 2 our players (1 of them for no reason). Axder is sick for 2 weeks already and everyone knows about it. And on Saturday we lost Hairless and we couldn't even play training at those day.
And your new interpretation of rule is just nonsense since it can create loops where you might be banned forever as many guys explained it already. But of course you didn't think about it coz you just throwing out random decisions to make DM weaker or something. And tell me that you are not biased at this point.

And show me the rule where i can see that "default is not count as match". But i'm pretty sure you will just ignore this once again.

 

[Kunshiro]

Exactly - it is not up to me, or any admin, to decide whether a team could have played or what their motive was in ANY case. We cannot know, and it not our business to pretend we can know, what anyone's intentions were.

We deal only with what actually happened. What happened here was that DM defaulted on a match whilst having players suspended for a rule break..
The usual result of that is that any players suspended for x matches do not have that match count towards their ban.

Had DR been the ones who defaulted then the match would have counted towards DM players suspension - on the principle that teams dont suffer loss because of other teams decisions.

In the past the discussion was usually about whether or not the team which not responsible for the unplayed match would have it count for a ban. Until now I never heard anyone suggest that a team which decided for whatever reason not to play a match had it count towards a suspension.

There's no precedence over that, and I am sorry but with the timing you said this, and with no rules written over it, makes me believe you have a personal vendetta, considering this never happened and no rules states otherwise.

 

[Teugata]

The usual result of that is that any players suspended for x matches do not have that match count towards their ban.

Why is this a thing? It's nowhere in the current written rules and I never seen it happen before in the last 3 beasts. I don't understand why this is a thing and I belief it shouldn't be, there is no reason for it. Even if teams would do a stupid thing like default all the banned matches on purpose even when they could have played it would only be bad for them and you could punish the team under unsportsmanlike conduct regardless.

 

[Shemaforash]

Why is this a thing? It's nowhere in the current written rules and I never seen it happen before in the last 3 beasts. I don't understand why this is a thing and I belief it shouldn't be, there is no reason for it. Even if teams would do a stupid thing like default all the banned matches on purpose even when they could have played it would only be bad for them and you could punish the team under unsportsmanlike conduct regardless.

This sounds like a rule that was transferred from warband tournaments

 

[Kunshiro]

This sounds like a rule that was transferred from warband tournaments

Dont think that was ever the case.

 

[Aeronwen]

Dont think that was ever the case.

Not only, was it the case but the discussion previously was around whether a match would be counted towards a ban when the team could not play due to the other team defaulting.
Which is why it is surprising that all the drama makers have managed to convince the less critical of the opposite.

Why is this a thing? It's nowhere in the current written rules and I never seen it happen before in the last 3 beasts. I don't understand why this is a thing and I belief it shouldn't be, there is no reason for it. Even if teams would do a stupid thing like default all the banned matches on purpose even when they could have played it would only be bad for them and you could punish the team under unsportsmanlike conduct regardless.

As far as I am aware this situation has not arisen before in BEAST.

Also I thought we just agreed that admins cant know the intent behind teams defaulting, now you are saying I can assume it?

There's no precedence over that, and I am sorry but with the timing you said this, and with no rules written over it, makes me believe you have a personal vendetta, considering this never happened and no rules states otherwise.

Why would I have a personal vendetta against anyone? who is it I am supposed to have a personal vendetta against?

Are you suggesting that I persuaded Varadin into installing a mod? Or Nikola into promoting it across the community?

Do all the admins who voted for the bans have a persoanl vendetta against whoever it is?
Was reverting to the semis part of the personal vendetta?
What about offering DM & DR an extension so they could play the match (both teams declined), was that part of a personal vendetta also?

 

[Silvernj]

You are basically ignoring the core of the question and fighting with the wording they use or some random accusations. What rule says default does not count as a match?

 

[mrArgentum]

Do all the admins who voted for the bans have a persoanl vendetta against whoever it is?

Which “all the admins”? You literally have only you and your yesman ikea. When they was voting for bans, it was 2vs2 and then you voted out bard coz he is “biased”. But the most biased admin around is you.
Thanks once again that you ignored my question about which exactly rule says about “default is not a match” and admit my words

 

[Aeronwen]

Which “all the admins”? You literally have only you and your yesman ikea. When they was voting for bans, it was 2vs2 and then you voted out bard coz he is “biased”. But the most biased admin around is you.
Thanks once again that you ignored my question about which exactly rule says about “default is not a match” and admit my words

All of the above is a lie.
It is not Ok to post lies about the admins.

It is usual for an admin who is in a team or a clan invloved in the discussion to recuse themselves from the vote.

No-one voted Bard out. He said at the begining of the tourney he was going to stop at admining at the end.
He chose to step down early because of the immense pressure. I, for one, regret that Bard left and would like him to continue admining.

For each vote the admins were split but it is not the case that that the same 2 admins voted the same way on every issue.

Regarding the usual application of the match bans, I have neither the time nor the inclination to search the previous cases nor am I going to release admin consultations in those or any other case.

Thread locked until the administration for the next stage of the tournament is completed.