Techno_Viking
Sergeant
I want a deceisive poll to be implemented to be done with it for once and for all!
Proposed new rules and discussion about day's topics.
- 主题发起人 sadnhappy
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Sergeant
crazyboy11
Baron
Techno_Viking 说:
Please not this again, we've already had a massive discussion before the league started regarding the benefit of poll vs discussion.
And especially in a case like this where a number of clans have a vested interest in changing the rules, a poll will be completely swayed.
Modus Tollens the relevance is obvious.
The fact that Nico has been in the clan well over a year is proof that he is a member of our clan and our team. It is proof that he is a legitimate player for us and that we were not attempting to cheat or engage in some form of corruption.
The point of the rule is to stop cheaters and liars, not prevent legitimate players from playing.
Thusly in this particular example it seems clear that the rule is not in fact serving its intended purpose but punishing clans for legitimate behavior on account of overly harsh penalties for what is nothing more than an administrative error.
---
Oh and go prove that Sadnhappy is wrong about when the rules were implemented, oh wait you cannot there is no evidence, the post made on the 18th is the only mention of these rules. One would think what with the extreme confidence that Lust has in his other paperwork such as his rosters and logs that all his paperwork would be impeccable but on this occasion there is a gap however large or small you think it is and on this occasion it contributed to Sad's error.
---
You think giving out default wins for administrative hoop jumping failures is when a set of rules is working ideally? When a legitimate player plays for a clan and that clan is punished with a 20-0 default loss because of nothing but bureaucracy you think things are working perfectly?
Maybe we care because we care about the league and want it to be as good as it can be.
The fact that Nico has been in the clan well over a year is proof that he is a member of our clan and our team. It is proof that he is a legitimate player for us and that we were not attempting to cheat or engage in some form of corruption.
The point of the rule is to stop cheaters and liars, not prevent legitimate players from playing.
Thusly in this particular example it seems clear that the rule is not in fact serving its intended purpose but punishing clans for legitimate behavior on account of overly harsh penalties for what is nothing more than an administrative error.
---
Oh and go prove that Sadnhappy is wrong about when the rules were implemented, oh wait you cannot there is no evidence, the post made on the 18th is the only mention of these rules. One would think what with the extreme confidence that Lust has in his other paperwork such as his rosters and logs that all his paperwork would be impeccable but on this occasion there is a gap however large or small you think it is and on this occasion it contributed to Sad's error.
---
You think giving out default wins for administrative hoop jumping failures is when a set of rules is working ideally? When a legitimate player plays for a clan and that clan is punished with a 20-0 default loss because of nothing but bureaucracy you think things are working perfectly?
Maybe we care because we care about the league and want it to be as good as it can be.
Plazek 说:
For crying out loud, there was no error on my part. This post was made on the 7th, when the OP for the old roster thread was changed, along with the title, which made it absolutely clear. Stop referring to the 18th as any date of significance, it is not. Wow. How many times must I repeat myself. There is full evidence.
captain lust 说:Updated instructions:
[UPDATE] Important announcement concerning Team Rosters: All teams will have a roster displayed here publicly and another copy kept privately, by me (captain lust) which will also include gameIDs for identity checking.
Do not sumbit a roster, with this information. Instead, all players participating in the tournament must go to the Warband server "ENL_Registration". Players only need to join for a second. There is no need to spawn or post a message, just join and leave. All players in the tournament must do this by 6th June. If you see this announcement, go and join the server yourself and inform your team they all need to do the same. You don't need to join as a team but you must be wearing your clan tags. The server will be up during the day and late into the night.
The roster deadline is passed and I think most teams have got the players they wanted. IF you are missing players (and some teams definitely are) don't worry. Just send the missing players to the server "ENL_Registration" in the next few days and then send me a PM, with their names. I'll add them.
If you need to add a lot of players, do the same but do send me their names. Instead just send me a PM saying you want a total overhaul and I'll regather all the names I've got.
But the whole discussion is moot anyway because sad should've verify the roster, as every fixtures thread tells you to do so. 22nd are 100% in the wrong. The decision is final.
Now please use this thread for its intended purpose, which is to discuss possible future changes to the rules.
Nope, the roster is relevant and it doesn't matter if someone is in a clan for 1 day or 1 year as long as he is on the roster.Plazek 说:
That seems to be your interpretation of the rule but doesn't mean it's the right one - you could also say, and I follow that interpretation, that only players on the roster are allowed to play (no additional addendum there).Plazek 说:
And I don't have to prove anything - even if your conspiracy-theories are pretty sad. At the time of the match you knew about the rules (and the "roster-rule" was already added before the actual start of or your sign-up for the tournament, no matter when the substitution-thread was recreated).Plazek 说:
The one responsible for your rosters ****ed up, nothing more and no administrative hoop jumping involved. Never said the rules are ideal, all I said was that it's impossible to test rules without actually using them (and they were there to read and discuss before the sign-ups ended).Plazek 说:
I have no doubt about that. Whining and accusing the organisator after a rule is applied isn't helping though - discussing the rule isn't a problem but instantly changing them - especially for made-up reasons only applicable on one match - is not very constructive.Plazek 说:
You have still won the match, calling reasonable rules (see the 5vs5-tournament) unnecessary "bureaucracy" because it's unfavorable for you is just bull****.
I cant see screenshots because of internet issues, but i see written in the thread that it is default win.Blead 说:
It was indeed a default win.arsenic_vengeur 说:
Jesus people really do seem incapable of sticking on-subject.
Lust (and others who are interested), so far the suggested rule changes have been (as far as I can remember):
1. Instead of default win the whole match is replayed.
2. instead of default win the rounds in which the rules were broken are re-played.
3. Match is replayed with a player missing on the offending team.
4. Match is replayed whilst the non-rule breaking team can pick one or a couple of the opposing teams players not to play.
5. Instead of 20-0 default win only the rounds in which the rules were broken give a default win.
6. keep as they are (I put this in as at least one person had this opinion)
Now, in the interest of time, patience, and energy, why don't we move the discussion onto a more detailed analysis of the above suggestions to try and come up with the best solution?
Lust (and others who are interested), so far the suggested rule changes have been (as far as I can remember):
1. Instead of default win the whole match is replayed.
2. instead of default win the rounds in which the rules were broken are re-played.
3. Match is replayed with a player missing on the offending team.
4. Match is replayed whilst the non-rule breaking team can pick one or a couple of the opposing teams players not to play.
5. Instead of 20-0 default win only the rounds in which the rules were broken give a default win.
6. keep as they are (I put this in as at least one person had this opinion)
Now, in the interest of time, patience, and energy, why don't we move the discussion onto a more detailed analysis of the above suggestions to try and come up with the best solution?
ModusTollens 说:
1) So in your opinion bureaucracy > common sense.
2) So perhaps you would care to tell me what this rule is for? Surely it is not meant to punish fairness?
3) Conspiracy theories? This is just the date Sad believed to be when the new sub rules came into effect what with the dated forum topic dedicated to them.
4) Find any post made by me in this forum where I am "whining",
Triakor
Sergeant
An error is an error whether small or big. You put the coma after the wrong digit on a maths equation and the result will be wrong = you lose
You look at the ass of a biker on the side of the road only for a second while driving and you crash the car = you lose
You make a slight timing mistake while dueling = you lose
It does not matter if the error is small or big if you make an error you lose, error being small or big only changes the fact that you are careless or an idiot.
Rules are rules, and if you accept them that means you have to abide no matter what. I can argue to the fullest extent on this forum why Kerghits should be allowed or someone else can debate for pages why class limitation should be enforced. There is no end to discussing matters. This league is not the first or the last league in Warband but it is a league organized by Captainlust and due to that fact his verdict is final. If you do not like this league you can organize another, where default wins are not allowed.
@sad when I read your posts I feel I am watching a top firm lawyer who did not give a crap about a toxic factory in his neighborhood until his own son dies of cancer. My advise suck it up, drink a cold glass of water and be careful next time (I am sure that you will double check your roster next time for any league whatsoever) n be Happy
@plazek you say that the penalty is unproportionate but as your posts for DFD_Peter issue suggests, you have kicked out players from your team even for crimes less serious than that one. So when your rule is violated you enforce the sanction to the fullest, but when lust does the same his decision is flawed, is that so? This is hypocrisy at worst and incisiveness at best.
@lust toxic factory phrase is there only as a metaphor and does not imply that you are toxic - even though you are
as for RBD vs RRush 0 -20 RDB told us that they forfeit the match and we win by default then left the league which cancelled our 20-0 default win, soon I will post a thread (!) claiming that 20 round should be awarded to us since those points were won before they left the league.
You look at the ass of a biker on the side of the road only for a second while driving and you crash the car = you lose
You make a slight timing mistake while dueling = you lose
It does not matter if the error is small or big if you make an error you lose, error being small or big only changes the fact that you are careless or an idiot.
Rules are rules, and if you accept them that means you have to abide no matter what. I can argue to the fullest extent on this forum why Kerghits should be allowed or someone else can debate for pages why class limitation should be enforced. There is no end to discussing matters. This league is not the first or the last league in Warband but it is a league organized by Captainlust and due to that fact his verdict is final. If you do not like this league you can organize another, where default wins are not allowed.
@sad when I read your posts I feel I am watching a top firm lawyer who did not give a crap about a toxic factory in his neighborhood until his own son dies of cancer. My advise suck it up, drink a cold glass of water and be careful next time (I am sure that you will double check your roster next time for any league whatsoever) n be Happy
@plazek you say that the penalty is unproportionate but as your posts for DFD_Peter issue suggests, you have kicked out players from your team even for crimes less serious than that one. So when your rule is violated you enforce the sanction to the fullest, but when lust does the same his decision is flawed, is that so? This is hypocrisy at worst and incisiveness at best.
@lust toxic factory phrase is there only as a metaphor and does not imply that you are toxic - even though you are
as for RBD vs RRush 0 -20 RDB told us that they forfeit the match and we win by default then left the league which cancelled our 20-0 default win, soon I will post a thread (!) claiming that 20 round should be awarded to us since those points were won before they left the league.
Techno_Viking
Sergeant
Plazek 说:
4)done
There's no bureaucracy involved. "Common sense" is an ambiguous concept - and yes, in my opinion, rules are better than referring to common sense in scenarios like that, since referring to common sense can mean anything (without providing any factual foundation - other than claiming something is "common sense").Plazek 说:
To make sure only players play who are on the roster (and not people who use the same nick as it happened in the 5vs5). "Fairness" wasn't punished, you used a player who wasn't on the roster and therefore violated the rules.Plazek 说:
In the same thread where Lust already pointed out why was it recreated - beside from the, now, countless times Lust explained it. Still repeating it although one could and should know better is what conspiracy-theories and sad's claims have in common.Plazek 说:
I wasn't specifically pointing at you but the direction the thread took in general. On the other hand, the fact that it's still discussed under the aspect of changing the rules applied to your match against RN are considered "whining" by me; a concept I- it seems - use in a pretty broad sense since I'm using it often.Plazek 说:
Techno_Viking
Sergeant
Techno_Viking 说:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA
I am surprised the moderators of this forum have not asked you retarded spammers to cut the ****.
What I meant on my initial point Modus is that in this example there is no intentional rule breaking or corrupt action. In this particular example the rules are not set out to do what they are meant to do that is prevent cheating. The rules at this point are punishing not observing the rules, for the sake of the rules, for no other reason than the bureaucracy. This is not ideal.
I asked you the purpose of the rules not what the rules are. You just gave me a description of the rules. Why do we only want players playing who are on the roster? If there is no reason behind it (there is) then it is even worse that results should be skewed for no greater purpose!
Sure Lust says again and again that the 18th is irrelevant. But is it not irrelevant to Sadnhappy. He may have interpreted wrongly but that is how he interpreted things. This interpretation is just as factual as Lust's account. However mistaken.
--
Yea I dislike people who always accuse others of whining probably because people use it so broadly ie when there is none
What I meant on my initial point Modus is that in this example there is no intentional rule breaking or corrupt action. In this particular example the rules are not set out to do what they are meant to do that is prevent cheating. The rules at this point are punishing not observing the rules, for the sake of the rules, for no other reason than the bureaucracy. This is not ideal.
I asked you the purpose of the rules not what the rules are. You just gave me a description of the rules. Why do we only want players playing who are on the roster? If there is no reason behind it (there is) then it is even worse that results should be skewed for no greater purpose!
Sure Lust says again and again that the 18th is irrelevant. But is it not irrelevant to Sadnhappy. He may have interpreted wrongly but that is how he interpreted things. This interpretation is just as factual as Lust's account. However mistaken.
--
Yea I dislike people who always accuse others of whining probably because people use it so broadly ie when there is none
It might be a simple, unintentional, innocent error, which we all believe it is too, but still it won't change the fact that a rule was broken. Everybody has to follow the rules, even if you are one of the trustworthy people in this community.
Bite Me 说:
Riveting post old chap.
I quite like option 5, as replaying a match has a couple of inherent problems. (Another match must be played, possible exploit of rules to force replay, etc). It would still probably change the match in favor of the team who followed the rules which seems fair. For repeated offenses I think match losses or disqualification would still be acceptable.
As the bitten man said, I think it is time to move on. The rule has been applied and invoked, let us focus on possible changes.
I find it less than interesting to discuss/read as to why this roster mistake occurred, who(if anyone) is to blame, etc.
All this internet drama be damned.
Bureaucracy grows to fullfill the growing needs of bureaucracy.
