Ultimately each individual player is liable, unless he/she explicitly told one of the teams that they were signed up for to not sign them up after they had removed themselves. There's nothing you can really do about it as an individual if the captain of a team puts you back on the roster after you've said not to be put on.
So why don't we just punish those individuals and move on? The only way I see the community being affected is that some people were signed up for multiple teams, which is obviously cannot be allowed. It not only serves (an appropriate amount of) justice, but also is a good incentive for people to avoid doing the same in the future.
Ladle 57
Moderator: Light
-
kyle
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1963
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
- Contact:
Re: Ladle 57
If this is this big of a deal someone set up a comunity based vote like dlh did last time there was a huge problem asking team leaders? if those few players should be punished and then how so IE cannot play for 1 ladle. (i'd dig up links about it but i am too lazy to do that)
until then
until then
-
ElmosWorld
- Match Winner
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm
Re: Ladle 57
I like your ideal but is it realistic? Seeing the similar situations like Ladle 57 and Ladle 36 keep happening I don't think this approach works in preventing things like this to happen.Conc wrote:The community can continue down a road to more rules and regulations, or we can engage and hold each other to high standards of integrity.
I'm only suggesting to make the rule that once you're signed up you can only play for that team. I don't see how this can have any negative effect on the competition unless everyone wants the freedom to switch teams in which case there wouldn't be any point in listing the players in the challenge board.
In any competition there are some rules. And you have to be a rule follower to participate just like it is already.Conc wrote:when you reduce the community to rules and following them, you get rules and rule followers.
As I already said previously. I'm not making these comments to condemn Team Baylife. But I'm just trying to make the Ladle more cheat proof competition. I'm not seeking any punishment but if there were issues then we should fix/improve upon as we move forward.Insa wrote:The only question I can ask (aimed at lacka, sine.wav, 1200, word, Concord etc), did we somehow ruin your enjoyment of the ladle? I can understand my clan being upset with me. But really no one else has any ground to stand on here.
I actually like seeing these all-star teams forming. It's more interesting and challenging than playing the same team all the time.
Re: Ladle 57
Are we going to go ahead with Elmo's vote? Is this the community's final decision as to how to resolve this scenario?
If so, I will discuss my vote with nubi and get back to you (Elmo)
If so, I will discuss my vote with nubi and get back to you (Elmo)
Re: Ladle 57
This seems like the only way to go about it. Some people broke some rules, and it seems like a lot of people in the community are annoyed. If 2/3 of us think they should get punished, they'll get punished.
Re: Ladle 57
how's that for your own taste of medicine dlh, lack?
you couldn't care less, but here you are caring about it enough to take a hit at "certain clans" or "people"?...
like me? only because i didn't have anything else more to add to the same discussion, but only 4 years on? because as far as i can remember, it was just me and psyko from SP that were against aliases.. not "certain clans", ironically coming from the person who created team binary and again irony coming from someone who was in team binary..
as far as i can remember, that alias/smurf discussion after teambinary-thing went no where because there wasn't enough support for a solution to prevent alias/smurf teams/players. so the argument against it or for it was subject to opinion rather than the whole "community" collectively banding together. thus this is what has happened. so thank those who argued against psyko and myself with mindless and thoughtless opinions. i say mindless/thoughtless because what logic was it to argue for smurf names, other than ignorance.
i must admit, I couldn't figure out a perfect solution for it and at that same time the problem seemed to not be as relevant to my life to figure out a perfect solution for it.. the goal was to prevent the core community doing it rather than unknown people or irrelevant people doing it. so for a time it went away. what annoyed me wasn't because people were using alias names, but because it was pretty much a few of the core community members doing it. unlike other games, the communities are large and aliases are irrelevant.
but before that! there was no discussion, there was no proactive solution to such an issue i had... the issue being why the core community had a split mentality, why SP had to hold none existent rules and hold sportsmanship while their opponents were stacking teams and going as far as to use aliases, just so they could grab a win? so after that ladle, I decided that we could be flexible in the way we decide who will be playing where. Which team needs the "stack" and which team can hold their own. ironically dlh came hard and fast like he has done in this thread by being the first person to provoke an argument and then step out. accuse SP of team switching and that's what it looked like so I apologized on behalf of SP to those who we offended that weren't stacking teams or using aliases and how it was crossing the lines of switching brackets. We certainly didn't switch to make it easier on us, we faced the same stacked team and got our revenge... funny enough it started the discussion and i reverted back to the ladle before.
it's best to keep your mouth sealed now when you did NOTHING to solve this kind of situation and you also did it yourself, before the discussion..
but i'm sort of not sure where you stand when you say you just want consistency, as i do too.. so in this respect when Revolver stacked a team, I assume FoFo, Insa, potter, slash are all good friends and they have their loyalty to their clans and as I see it, their clans aren't performing at peak level so they want to take out the challenge [Revolver] so they used a method that seemed to be legal.
people need to stop responding to sinewav, first he's totally cool about it, now he's collecting apologies.. wtf is wrong with this guy.. i don't get it.. he's also quoting me while in that same subject he argued against it?...... It's not Speeders burden, shut your ******* face.
FoFo and Insanity were not signed up. They did not break the rules, why are they even in the vote?
Potter and Slash seem to be signed up, but in retrospect you have to investigate whether they agreed to be signed up or were signed up without their agreement.. then the question boils down to who's responsibility is it to make sure the bracket is correct. I believe both.. This is a condition worth adding.. Such as, the player is responsible that he removes himself from the previous team before signing up to a new team and if it's before the deadline it is considered a player swap. A team leader should also get confirmation before adding players?
you couldn't care less, but here you are caring about it enough to take a hit at "certain clans" or "people"?...
like me? only because i didn't have anything else more to add to the same discussion, but only 4 years on? because as far as i can remember, it was just me and psyko from SP that were against aliases.. not "certain clans", ironically coming from the person who created team binary and again irony coming from someone who was in team binary..
as far as i can remember, that alias/smurf discussion after teambinary-thing went no where because there wasn't enough support for a solution to prevent alias/smurf teams/players. so the argument against it or for it was subject to opinion rather than the whole "community" collectively banding together. thus this is what has happened. so thank those who argued against psyko and myself with mindless and thoughtless opinions. i say mindless/thoughtless because what logic was it to argue for smurf names, other than ignorance.
i must admit, I couldn't figure out a perfect solution for it and at that same time the problem seemed to not be as relevant to my life to figure out a perfect solution for it.. the goal was to prevent the core community doing it rather than unknown people or irrelevant people doing it. so for a time it went away. what annoyed me wasn't because people were using alias names, but because it was pretty much a few of the core community members doing it. unlike other games, the communities are large and aliases are irrelevant.
but before that! there was no discussion, there was no proactive solution to such an issue i had... the issue being why the core community had a split mentality, why SP had to hold none existent rules and hold sportsmanship while their opponents were stacking teams and going as far as to use aliases, just so they could grab a win? so after that ladle, I decided that we could be flexible in the way we decide who will be playing where. Which team needs the "stack" and which team can hold their own. ironically dlh came hard and fast like he has done in this thread by being the first person to provoke an argument and then step out. accuse SP of team switching and that's what it looked like so I apologized on behalf of SP to those who we offended that weren't stacking teams or using aliases and how it was crossing the lines of switching brackets. We certainly didn't switch to make it easier on us, we faced the same stacked team and got our revenge... funny enough it started the discussion and i reverted back to the ladle before.
it's best to keep your mouth sealed now when you did NOTHING to solve this kind of situation and you also did it yourself, before the discussion..
but i'm sort of not sure where you stand when you say you just want consistency, as i do too.. so in this respect when Revolver stacked a team, I assume FoFo, Insa, potter, slash are all good friends and they have their loyalty to their clans and as I see it, their clans aren't performing at peak level so they want to take out the challenge [Revolver] so they used a method that seemed to be legal.
people need to stop responding to sinewav, first he's totally cool about it, now he's collecting apologies.. wtf is wrong with this guy.. i don't get it.. he's also quoting me while in that same subject he argued against it?...... It's not Speeders burden, shut your ******* face.
FoFo and Insanity were not signed up. They did not break the rules, why are they even in the vote?
Potter and Slash seem to be signed up, but in retrospect you have to investigate whether they agreed to be signed up or were signed up without their agreement.. then the question boils down to who's responsibility is it to make sure the bracket is correct. I believe both.. This is a condition worth adding.. Such as, the player is responsible that he removes himself from the previous team before signing up to a new team and if it's before the deadline it is considered a player swap. A team leader should also get confirmation before adding players?
-
ElmosWorld
- Match Winner
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm
Re: Ladle 57
Flex wrote:Potter and Slash seem to be signed up, but in retrospect you have to investigate whether they agreed to be signed up or were signed up without their agreement..
ppotter wrote:Although yes I (or "my" alias) was added to the challenge board during/after the ladle, I did know about the team etc. So if you are going to admonish vov/slash, then I deserve as well (if not more so, when I got home I did consider playing for both Baylife and uNk).
Re: Ladle 57
Flex wrote:people need to stop responding to sinewav, first he's totally cool about it, now he's collecting apologies.. wtf is wrong with this guy.. i don't get it..
Re: Ladle 57
Chill bro. I was never cool with it. My very first post says "this kind of behavior is really in poor taste." After looking over the situation more carefully, it's clear there are some discrepancies. But more importantly, this is a precedent-setting situation -- and it's not setting us up to go in a good direction. This gets right to the heart of your argument against the use of aliases. You are correct in the sense that aliases can be harmful. But there is also no solution to the alias problem. We only have each other to be honest with. This breach in honesty, the lying to teammates, the carelessness with the Challenge Board -- these are the things that are upsetting to the rest of the community. More than anything we want assurance, from everyone, that none of us will do this sort of thing in the future.Flex wrote:people need to stop responding to sinewav, first he's totally cool about it, now he's collecting apologies.. wtf is wrong with this guy.. i don't get it.. he's also quoting me while in that same subject he argued against it?...... It's not Speeders burden, shut your ******* face.
I personally believe if Baylife had simply been honest with their teams and managed the Challenge Board correctly, no one would give a shit about the aliases. Everyone loves an all-star team. But this current situation is no good. It opens the door for copy-cats. We don't want that.
Regarding what I said about the burden being on Speeders; this is simply because Baylife seems to have been initialized by Fofo and Insa -- two members of your clan. This is unfortunate. I don't have anything against Speeders (or anyone else for that matter). I'm sorry if you think that, but it's not true.
Re: Ladle 57
For further consideration:
TeamBaylife was added to the Challenge Board by We, who used a web proxy to further hide their identity. Actually they used 2, which is a little silly. I'm not entirely confident that it was only insa who managed the team.
Additionally, TeamBaylife was not aware of the rule that states that every player must authenticate. This is the simplest rule we have, and they were not aware of it. I think they all eventually authenticated for the first round, and definitely for the rest of the tournament.
Aside
Flex, I signed up Team binary for Ladle 35 using the global ID I ALWAYS use. Team binary players all authenticated in-game using our regular global IDs, although some may have had hidden GIDs due to the game-default auth display settings. We were not trying to deceive people about who we were.
About the rest of your rant: do you even understand how hypocritical you are? It's unfortunate that many of your inflammatory remarks after Ladle 36 were removed by a moderator—if they had not been, then everyone could have a 100% understanding of your narcissism. Luckily you came back to the forums to preach at us some more.
TeamBaylife was added to the Challenge Board by We, who used a web proxy to further hide their identity. Actually they used 2, which is a little silly. I'm not entirely confident that it was only insa who managed the team.
Additionally, TeamBaylife was not aware of the rule that states that every player must authenticate. This is the simplest rule we have, and they were not aware of it. I think they all eventually authenticated for the first round, and definitely for the rest of the tournament.
Aside
Flex, I signed up Team binary for Ladle 35 using the global ID I ALWAYS use. Team binary players all authenticated in-game using our regular global IDs, although some may have had hidden GIDs due to the game-default auth display settings. We were not trying to deceive people about who we were.
About the rest of your rant: do you even understand how hypocritical you are? It's unfortunate that many of your inflammatory remarks after Ladle 36 were removed by a moderator—if they had not been, then everyone could have a 100% understanding of your narcissism. Luckily you came back to the forums to preach at us some more.
Re: Ladle 57
Consideration added. So are you against aliases or for aliases? Or is your argument; you only did it a little and not as 'bad' as baylife and you don't consider it the same? Does that some how make it better?
You signed up your team with your global ID and the rest of the team roster was binary numbers on the challenge board. Only just before the first rounds you edited the roster to include the full team.. In-game they used binary numbers or something along those lines, but some were authed and some weren't. The confusion was who was actually named who they say they were and who was authed under who.. the numbers all looked similar so it was even more so trying to figure who was who in-game too. Trying to tell my team who was who based on the difference of binary numbers.. Cool confusion tactic I would say. Even if you weren't aware of it. So no, it did not help that you revealed yourselves at the last moment.
You would have preferred they had their names on the wiki?
Insanity signed up with We@aagid. His team consisted of "we" "are" "going" "to" "win" "ladle" or at least along those lines.
Were both teams under alias?
Were both teams stacked?
Don't call me the hypocrite, I didn't use an alias team to beat you. : ) You're the first one here that made a comment about aliases and you did it yourself, that's hypocritical.
Most of the players in team binary was really first class players, that I can remember, who were experienced and skilled players. What you can consider the "core" ladle community, which I went in during my rant.... Just like now, they showed it was OK to use aliases to the rest of the community. It was also OK to "stack" a team only to win, it showed it wasn't worth joining teams or clans or staying loyal to anyone. That's what pissed me off. SP was not at full strength nor did it try to fill the spots with as best as it could find. I didn't like the sportsmanship that was displayed that night. I looked at the rules to defend my case. There was none.
So what is different now.. As soon as the match started were you aware or trying to figure out who was who. The same applied to us during Ladle 36 finals. What is at all different here.. Yet you're on the other side. I'm on the side I was always on. All of this pretty much resides in sportsmanship territory.
You signed up your team with your global ID and the rest of the team roster was binary numbers on the challenge board. Only just before the first rounds you edited the roster to include the full team.. In-game they used binary numbers or something along those lines, but some were authed and some weren't. The confusion was who was actually named who they say they were and who was authed under who.. the numbers all looked similar so it was even more so trying to figure who was who in-game too. Trying to tell my team who was who based on the difference of binary numbers.. Cool confusion tactic I would say. Even if you weren't aware of it. So no, it did not help that you revealed yourselves at the last moment.
You would have preferred they had their names on the wiki?
Insanity signed up with We@aagid. His team consisted of "we" "are" "going" "to" "win" "ladle" or at least along those lines.
Were both teams under alias?
Were both teams stacked?
Don't call me the hypocrite, I didn't use an alias team to beat you. : ) You're the first one here that made a comment about aliases and you did it yourself, that's hypocritical.
Most of the players in team binary was really first class players, that I can remember, who were experienced and skilled players. What you can consider the "core" ladle community, which I went in during my rant.... Just like now, they showed it was OK to use aliases to the rest of the community. It was also OK to "stack" a team only to win, it showed it wasn't worth joining teams or clans or staying loyal to anyone. That's what pissed me off. SP was not at full strength nor did it try to fill the spots with as best as it could find. I didn't like the sportsmanship that was displayed that night. I looked at the rules to defend my case. There was none.
So what is different now.. As soon as the match started were you aware or trying to figure out who was who. The same applied to us during Ladle 36 finals. What is at all different here.. Yet you're on the other side. I'm on the side I was always on. All of this pretty much resides in sportsmanship territory.
-
Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6712
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
Re: Ladle 57
Bah. I love how everyone has simply ignored my recommendation to hold on posting for a day as time for reflection and maybe thinking up some new thoughts. I see the new thoughts, but they're not, to my mind, heading in a worthwhile direction.
Locked for ~24 hours. Same with the voting thread.
Locked for ~24 hours. Same with the voting thread.
-
Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6712
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
Re: Ladle 57
Thanks for unlocking this Tank.
And I was right.
The two* arguments you could possibly make against baylife are
1. that there were a few members listed twice on the challenge board
2. aliases
Was that my intention that people got signed up twice? Of course not. If you accept that sometimes things happen that you don't intend (which seems to be the case), then you wouldn't even contend point 1.
As for aliases, considering this issue has already been discussed by the community (instigated by yourself), you taking exception to something very similar would be very hypocritical of you. Unless you are legitimately anti-alias and now care more about fixing it than you did 20 ladles ago. However, no rules were broken so either way you don't have an argument.
*Note: I'm not considering sine.wav's: you do 'x' => other people do 'y' an argument. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum.
Yeah, I knew you would check the IP and try to match it to someone, not sure why you'd think I'd be consistent in proxy use, as long as it isn't my IP it doesn't matter to me what you see.dlh wrote:For further consideration:
TeamBaylife was added to the Challenge Board by We, who used a web proxy to further hide their identity. Actually they used 2, which is a little silly. I'm not entirely confident that it was only insa who managed the team.
And I was right.
What does this has to do with anything? The server settings were messed up apparently which you can't blame us for. Though I found it in very poor taste that your team tried to get 3t to disqualify us due to a few members of our team not having logged in yet.dlh wrote: Additionally, TeamBaylife was not aware of the rule that states that every player must authenticate. This is the simplest rule we have, and they were not aware of it. I think they all eventually authenticated for the first round, and definitely for the rest of the tournament.
You can't be so selective separating intention from results, your team was hidden, regardless of what you wanted it to be.dlh wrote:Flex, I signed up Team binary for Ladle 35 using the global ID I ALWAYS use. Team binary players all authenticated in-game using our regular global IDs, although some may have had hidden GIDs due to the game-default auth display settings. We were not trying to deceive people about who we were.
The two* arguments you could possibly make against baylife are
1. that there were a few members listed twice on the challenge board
2. aliases
Was that my intention that people got signed up twice? Of course not. If you accept that sometimes things happen that you don't intend (which seems to be the case), then you wouldn't even contend point 1.
As for aliases, considering this issue has already been discussed by the community (instigated by yourself), you taking exception to something very similar would be very hypocritical of you. Unless you are legitimately anti-alias and now care more about fixing it than you did 20 ladles ago. However, no rules were broken so either way you don't have an argument.
*Note: I'm not considering sine.wav's: you do 'x' => other people do 'y' an argument. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum.
You're misunderstanding Flex's post, I don't see any point where he defended what I did in regards to aliases. His post is simply pointing out your own hypocrisy. I'm not sure why you felt the need to come back to this thread to prove his point however.dlh wrote:About the rest of your rant: do you even understand how hypocritical you are? It's unfortunate that many of your inflammatory remarks after Ladle 36 were removed by a moderator—if they had not been, then everyone could have a 100% understanding of your narcissism. Luckily you came back to the forums to preach at us some more.
