Ladle 57

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
Titanoboa
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:07 pm

Re: Ladle 57

Post by Titanoboa »

Just to share a small thought.

I speculate: Would Team Baylife have signed up and played under alias if the rules clearly prohibited it? I don't think so.
If we're going to make a such a big deal about it every time a bunch of people decide to play under alias, why don't we just prohibit it in the rules?

And about the "there's no way to catch them" argument, I don't know about that. I don't think a known player would get away with playing under alias if we really set out to find out who it was. Also how about a tiny analogy on that subject.. "Let's not have laws against murder, it's impossible to catch all murderers anyway".

If we don't forbid aliases, chances are that some major team is gonna do it in 10-15 ladles again and we'll have another big and mostly unnecessary discussion. If we're okay with that, we don't need to forbid aliases.

And I have to agree that, while it is fun for the aliased players to play under alias, the integrity of the ladle as a whole is damaged when whole teams hide their known identity.

freako
Core Dumper
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:53 pm

Re: Ladle 57

Post by freako »

I Don't have a lot of time to write full forum posts. (Mostly a silent reader)
-*inS*- wrote: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.
1. People in the game were confused about the login rule.
2. We looked the rule up, and posted it ingame (As it is).

I personally find it an act of poor taste, that you accuse us of trying to get your team to disqualify you.
We just stated the rule in the chat, because people were confused about it.

Please enlighten me how we tried to disqualify you?

Also that your team members started to shout things as; "Afraid?"(x10), "Afraid of losing?" and "Disqualify us, because you can't beat us?" surely didn't earn my respect either.


@ladle authority: Great idea, lots of work though.
Crazy Tron Addict since : October 2002 <--- Beat that :)

User avatar
ElmosWorld
Match Winner
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm

Re: Ladle 57

Post by ElmosWorld »

Stage 4 wrote:All players are required to login to play, and those without forum accounts must be /OP'd by the Leader.
But when I mentioned that, a player(I believe it was dlh, although I am not sure) said that was not a rule.

Do the stages have different meanings then the actual rules themselves
Image

Overrated
Match Winner
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:32 am

Re: Ladle 57

Post by Overrated »

If you don't follow a stage (which I guess is basically the manual on how to do things) then doesn't that mean you aren't doing it correctly? Regardless... They didn't have two of their players op'd/logged in until late in the match, so they weren't following this part anyway. Should be a team captain's responsibility to make sure everyone is doing what it states in the Stages, as well as the rules.
BRAWL dead. RIP.

Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.

PokeMaster
Match Winner
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:36 am

Re: Ladle 57

Post by PokeMaster »

In regards to the login thing: The rule seems more to me like something to be used to keep wanderers from actually joining (much like locking a team). It's just a smart procedural thing to do, and I guess the only moral value to it would be so that liz doesn't play as house again (isn't that why the rule was created?).

The point is though, the server didn't enforce needing to be logged in, even though it should have. Sure, the blame is split up, those who didn't log in can't be entirely blameless, but I don't think there's much point in trying to hand out a punishment over something so trivial. I think making note of it so that it doesn't happen again in the future will do fine.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
-*inS*-
Round Winner
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Ladle 57

Post by -*inS*- »

freako wrote:I Don't have a lot of time to write full forum posts. (Mostly a silent reader)
-*inS*- wrote: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.
1. People in the game were confused about the login rule.
2. We looked the rule up, and posted it ingame (As it is).

I personally find it an act of poor taste, that you accuse us of trying to get your team to disqualify you.
We just stated the rule in the chat, because people were confused about it.

Please enlighten me how we tried to disqualify you?

Also that your team members started to shout things as; "Afraid?"(x10), "Afraid of losing?" and "Disqualify us, because you can't beat us?" surely didn't earn my respect either.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You could have simply told/pm'd me about the rule. Instead your team told 3t to "raise the issue". Thanks for being so helpful!
Titanoboa wrote:Would Team Baylife have signed up and played under alias if the rules clearly prohibited it? I don't think so.
If we're going to make a such a big deal about it every time a bunch of people decide to play under alias, why don't we just prohibit it in the rules?
++

Perhaps there should be a vote on aliases. It's clear some people are very against them (at least in this circumstance *cough cough*). We've had discussions about them before but nothing ever happened. Maybe those preaching anti-alias try to push for a rule rather than looking like fools trying to enforce something that doesn't exist.

For the record: I'm neutral on aliases, never have complained about them but I wouldn't care if they were banned either. No hypocrisy in that.
Image

User avatar
Mkay1
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1146
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Ladle 57

Post by Mkay1 »

Technically anyone could have baylife's seed. They were signed up as certain names and they can be reproduced by anyone wanted a free seed. This should be addressed, too.

Overrated
Match Winner
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:32 am

Re: Ladle 57

Post by Overrated »

Mkay1 wrote:Technically anyone could have baylife's seed. They were signed up as certain names and they can be reproduced by anyone wanted a free seed. This should be addressed, too.
Actually, if I remember correctly, at least 5 players from that team have to be on the same team next ladle. Or 4 with a team leader still being the same. We'll be missing one seed next ladle probably.
BRAWL dead. RIP.

Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4195
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Ladle 57

Post by Word »

no reactions to my ultra-long post in that other topic. meh. thought I'd either be completely wrong or completely right. :<

User avatar
Desolate
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Probably golfing

Re: Ladle 57

Post by Desolate »

He's saying that someone could sign up as we, will, win, ladle, real and maintain the seed since those are technically the same names.

I'm sure we could probably figure out if it's not the same players though.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6319
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 57

Post by sinewav »

They would still have to login. Not that rules matter anymore.

Post Reply