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:
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.
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.