[NC2016] Suggestions

Currently viewing this thread:

Watly

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
I think a certain part of Orion's PM should be seriously considered by anyone who intends to host a tournament with a similar ruleset to this one. The point is as follows:

Orion said:
Now, regarding "significant advantage," I'm sure you're all aware this is not quantifiable. Therefore, you are all weighing your opinions against each other, opinions which may not be absolute. This means that, by the rules, the decision of the admins may not be true to their feelings on the matter, as the decision must be absolute. While I disagree with the notion of subjective rulings, in this case you're stuck with one. I ask that you adjust your punishment to be equivalent to the strength of your opinions regarding this incident rather than allow yourselves to be cornered by your own poorly written rule, forced to pass judgment you may not wholly agree with. Even if your position regarding the NA incident remains unchanged, then I strongly advise you to rewrite this rule after. You cannot quantify something with opinions, and attempting to do so will create distrust and animosity in the community. If your desire is zero tolerance, then the rule should read "and the admins determine that any advantage was gained," or better, "any non-excepted changes were made." It is best if nothing is left to interpretation.
The significant can hold multiple different meanings, all slightly different to one another. It could mean both relevant as well as fairly large. Most people could agree that blue projectiles could have had an impact, but could argue at the same time that the impact wasn't anywhere near "fairly large." I feel that it would be good to look into this and either change the ruling to what Orion proposed, since that properly conveys what the admin team intended with their rule, or change the phrasing to: "an advantage that could have changed the outcome of the match."

Both interpretations are correct right now due to the ambiguity of the word "significant." I prefer the former, since it allows no grey area whatsoever and cracks down harshly on cheaters and forces team to constantly be on their guard against cheaters.



Fietta, I think you are a nice guy, but as of late, I get the feeling that someone dipped your brain in molten cheese with the rapid onslaught of moronic comments you've made recently.
 

Silvernj

Master Knight
Best answers
0
It's just hilarious how the community forgets about manners and patience when the decision is not in its favor.
Danate said:
Thanks for a compromise. When NA wakes up i'm sure we all will be grateful.
Re-read what you guys wrote just 3 pages ago.
 

Fietta

buıʇʇǝs uoıʇɔǝɹıp ʞɔɐʇʇɐ
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Captain Lust said:
What I need to make abundantly clear is that Fiesta was in no way responsible for bringing about a re-evaluation or change in this ruling.
RIP  :cry:
 

Tardet

French Toast
Count
NW
Best answers
0
You often forget about manners when you feel that you've been unfairly treated ; it's by all means not an excuse but a simple fact.

As regarding the decision, I'm happy to see that this admin team has been setting a precedent by quickly coming back on a decision which seemed to have been discussed a lot and on a matter which could have potentialy influenced the whole tournament. I see this as an encouraging gesture for the the future.

What I need to make abundantly clear is that Fiesta was in no way responsible for bringing about a re-evaluation or change in this ruling.
I'm pretty sure that anyone having a brain in this community, no matter how he uses it, would already know that. Let the kid have his fun, you already are giving him way too much attention :wink:
 

|Marek|

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
Silvernj said:
It's just hilarious how the community forgets about manners and patience when the decision is not in its favor.
You are not one of the patient guys either. :smile:

Silvernj said:
Silvernj said:
Well, it seems like Ukraine NC team couldn't make it and there's no possible way to gather a team for them. So we're asking to let us unite Russian and Ukraine NC teams. The ukranian addition to the russian team will consist of Bendetto and Fl3x, seems like. The old UKR players don't play anymore, the new ones don't show enough interest in this tourney.
hope we're not being ignored
 
Best answers
0
An admin team in a Warband tournament re-evaluating and changing a previously made decision ?! :O
Guys, is everything ok ?
:smile:
Glad it ended this way, and as mentioned before, 'influence of the community', if we could have a bit more transparency from admins in future tourneys, we'd have more of this 'influence of the community'. Imagine how cool that would be !
Just saying.
 

Elite_Garde

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Alene said:
Admin team used some common sense and kept original scores of the matches.

Captain Lust said:
The new decision is that Arys' tournament ban will be upheld but the original results of NA vs FIN and NA vs AUT & SWI will stand (8-8 and 10-3, respectively).
I think most of us are content with this ruling.

Now let's leave the incident behind and focus on upcoming matches.

Edit: No, I'm still not part of the admin team, just a player.
Rip
 

Néathar

Master Knight
Best answers
0
Watly said:
I think a certain part of Orion's PM should be seriously considered by anyone who intends to host a tournament with a similar ruleset to this one. The point is as follows:

Orion said:
Now, regarding "significant advantage," I'm sure you're all aware this is not quantifiable. Therefore, you are all weighing your opinions against each other, opinions which may not be absolute. This means that, by the rules, the decision of the admins may not be true to their feelings on the matter, as the decision must be absolute. While I disagree with the notion of subjective rulings, in this case you're stuck with one. I ask that you adjust your punishment to be equivalent to the strength of your opinions regarding this incident rather than allow yourselves to be cornered by your own poorly written rule, forced to pass judgment you may not wholly agree with. Even if your position regarding the NA incident remains unchanged, then I strongly advise you to rewrite this rule after. You cannot quantify something with opinions, and attempting to do so will create distrust and animosity in the community. If your desire is zero tolerance, then the rule should read "and the admins determine that any advantage was gained," or better, "any non-excepted changes were made." It is best if nothing is left to interpretation.
The significant can hold multiple different meanings, all slightly different to one another. It could mean both relevant as well as fairly large. Most people could agree that blue projectiles could have had an impact, but could argue at the same time that the impact wasn't anywhere near "fairly large." I feel that it would be good to look into this and either change the ruling to what Orion proposed, since that properly conveys what the admin team intended with their rule, or change the phrasing to: "an advantage that could have changed the outcome of the match."

Both interpretations are correct right now due to the ambiguity of the word "significant." I prefer the former, since it allows no grey area whatsoever and cracks down harshly on cheaters and forces team to constantly be on their guard against cheaters.
I strongly support the point made in these posts. Hope future tournaments will just leave as little room for subjective, potentially biased interpretations, as possible. It should be clearly determined what's considered cheating and what the consequences for cheating will be (always). It works in both ways. Caught cheaters will face their punishment, as harsh as it may be, and even if it might include the team being punished as well. At the same time, if someone is involved in something questionable that is however not included in the rules yet, he/she can't be punished for it. In that case the rules would have to be changed first.

For now I guess the situation has been handled in the best possible way.
 

Guaccmoleboy

On probation
Best answers
0
I'd like to apologize for my comments earlier, they were rude and unnecessary and it's clear to me that the admin team is capable of good decisions. Obviously, I was angry at the situation and I don't doubt that many other teams would've reacted the same way, but I'm not here to make excuses. It was stupid and rash, and I apologize. Hopefully the admin team can continue this decision making throughout the tournament.

Mad respect to the teams and people who took the time to help us (m'lady alene  :oops:).

fietta, it's appreciated, but like, let the real men do the talking, aight? :d
 

Scar

Prussian Immortal
Marquis
Best answers
0
Neathar said:
I strongly support the point made in these posts. Hope future tournaments will just leave as little room for subjective, potentially biased interpretations, as possible. It should be clearly determined what's considered cheating and what the consequences for cheating will be (always). It works in both ways. Caught cheaters will face their punishment, as harsh as it may be, and even if it might include the team being punished as well. At the same time, if someone is involved in something questionable that is however not included in the rules yet, he/she can't be punished for it. In that case the rules would have to be changed first.

For now I guess the situation has been handled in the best possible way.
Well this is why this decision has been so flawed and hard to make. When things still had some room for discussion and subjective opinion for the admins we got called biased, and many people wanted us to write a clear, very detailed and definite ruleset with bascially no room left for interpretation. As Marnid, who was written a very intelligent post on the matter, said, these rules can be chains in certain situations, just like they were here. I don't think anyone on the admin team believes the changed textures actually had a massive impact on the Austria & Switzerland game, maybe not even on the Finland match.

Writing rules is a big tradeoff between idealism and pragmatism, both forms come with advantages and disadvantages. Idealistic rules, as they are now, are very clear and definite and leave no room for interpretation. The punishment for a violation is always the same, which bascially eliminates all room for bias. The version of rules we had back during WNL1 etc were less clear and allowed for subjective opinion when making the decision. But it also leaves the door wide open for biased decision, and if we had made this decision right from the start, people could have very well jumped on deck and asked "Why do you punish Arys and NA differently than SotaMursu and KURWA?". This room for subjective opinion comes with responsibility and first and foremost trust from the community in their admins, and quite frankly I don't feel very confident making decisions on that basis considering our recent tournament history. You may argue I shouldn't be an admin then, yes maybe.

Anyway, I'm happy with this decision as it is right now. We will need to find a balance when writing these rules, but it has the be on basis of mutual agreement within the community.
 

Aeronwen

Marquis
Best answers
0
Well said, Scar

Before this NC there was a proposal for a Captains Committee for making decisions on various issues so that a variety of voices are heard before issues like this occur.  One of the areas we wanted to look at was codifying rule breaks into different categories of severity and consequence.

For various reasons it didn’t happen, but I would be interested in whether it was generally held to be a good idea.
 

^IvE

Sergeant at Arms
WF&S
Best answers
0
Update knockout stage asap, it will be


BeNe vs Germany
Finland vs UK

Poland vs Turkey
Russia vs France

cheers
 

Shoxi

Baron
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Just letting you to know, YUG team wants continue phase for 'lossers', response of members is positive.
 

theDonut

Squire
Best answers
0
Shoxi said:
Just letting you to know, YUG team wants continue phase for 'lossers', response of members is positive.
pretty sure Spain would be interested in something like this as well.
 

Kiano

Baron
Best answers
0
I think Ireland are in their prime for the losers section. Think we can do it as well.
 

zDevilBox

Sergeant
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Hello, i have a queistion, can i play without leaves at the tree? Without them i have 30 fps stably, with them 15-30. Dont worry i played all matches with leaves, but i cant play normally.