PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
Moderator: Light
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
well technically, only captains are allowed to edit teams on the challenge board. It's a silly rule, but in this case, had it been followed, slash or potter would have informed their unk captain that they needed to be removed from the roster, and it would have prevented the deception.
-
ElmosWorld
- Match Winner
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
That's what the vote is for-*inS*- wrote:I couldn't care less who added the names, I'm pointing out slash made an active attempt to remove them, what more do you want from him??
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
I think players should have the right to remove themselves, not add. This seems obvious and less silly, and we should think about an amendment. If the players tried to remove themselves, I think that should count for something. Count for what I'm not sure, but you know, let's see what happens. This is a very unique situation.Concord wrote:well technically, only captains are allowed to edit teams on the challenge board. It's a silly rule, but in this case, had it been followed, slash or potter would have informed their unk captain that they needed to be removed from the roster, and it would have prevented the deception.
As much as we want to avoid it, we might have to make small tweaks to the rules.
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
Considering I've got myself involved here, at least I'll provide my input to this..
Weed is in the line of fire for editing another team and causing confusion. The rule is there to prevent confusion and make someone accountable.
Insanity is in the line of fire for adding vov, even though he was already added to another team.
Insanity should not have allowed or considered vov, slash or potter in the team, to play; if they was already registered. This should be considered when voting.
vov is in line of fire for signing up to two teams.
vov should have made an effort to remove himself from Pure Luck roster. Was this done? This should be considered when voting.
Pure Luck team leaders are not involved, unless they knew vov was signed up twice.
slash is in line of fire for signing up to two teams.
slash made an attempt to remove himself, this should be considered. Who is 3.142? Who actually added him back? This should be resolved.
potter is in line of fire for signing up to two teams.
potter should have made an effort to remove himself from Team uNk. This should be considered when voting.
Team uNk can't be blamed for adding someone that was not technically not on any team roster.
The rest go free.
I'm in favour of the rule allowing players to be removed. This could allow more punishment to individuals when they have the access to do it themselves rather than go through team leaders and did not do it. Obviously not able add though.
Slightly off topic is the question of actually how much should have Insanity done.. Actually how much should have the other teams done to make sure the players they actually signed up were actually going to play for them?
In regards to potter and slash, he did not technically add them, nor did he have the right to edit other teams to correct it. Then you can say for sure that it was all equally Insanity's, vov's, slash and potters involvement that are to blame. I think Insanity should be held accountable to the fact that he was the team leader and he should have been aware of the risk he was putting himself in and the rest should equally be aware that they committed to the same deception.
There we go, I hope the vote is corrected.
The elephant in the room is still aliases though.
Weed is in the line of fire for editing another team and causing confusion. The rule is there to prevent confusion and make someone accountable.
Insanity is in the line of fire for adding vov, even though he was already added to another team.
Insanity should not have allowed or considered vov, slash or potter in the team, to play; if they was already registered. This should be considered when voting.
vov is in line of fire for signing up to two teams.
vov should have made an effort to remove himself from Pure Luck roster. Was this done? This should be considered when voting.
Pure Luck team leaders are not involved, unless they knew vov was signed up twice.
slash is in line of fire for signing up to two teams.
slash made an attempt to remove himself, this should be considered. Who is 3.142? Who actually added him back? This should be resolved.
potter is in line of fire for signing up to two teams.
potter should have made an effort to remove himself from Team uNk. This should be considered when voting.
Team uNk can't be blamed for adding someone that was not technically not on any team roster.
The rest go free.
I'm in favour of the rule allowing players to be removed. This could allow more punishment to individuals when they have the access to do it themselves rather than go through team leaders and did not do it. Obviously not able add though.
Slightly off topic is the question of actually how much should have Insanity done.. Actually how much should have the other teams done to make sure the players they actually signed up were actually going to play for them?
In regards to potter and slash, he did not technically add them, nor did he have the right to edit other teams to correct it. Then you can say for sure that it was all equally Insanity's, vov's, slash and potters involvement that are to blame. I think Insanity should be held accountable to the fact that he was the team leader and he should have been aware of the risk he was putting himself in and the rest should equally be aware that they committed to the same deception.
There we go, I hope the vote is corrected.
The elephant in the room is still aliases though.
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
That was a solid post Flex, thank you. I agree, and I think it clears up a lot and puts it all in one place.
-
ElmosWorld
- Match Winner
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
I agree. Is there another Flex that was posting earlier?sinewav wrote:That was a solid post Flex, thank you. I agree, and I think it clears up a lot and puts it all in one place.
-
Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6711
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
Did the accused player, eggcozy, violate Rule #3 for players (Only Team Leaders may add, edit or remove their team from the Challenge Board)? No, Yes and they should receive (1 warning, 2 warnings, 3 warnings, banned from future ladles)
my 2 cents
Rules stated in this thread seem to make ladles less interesting/competitive. People are less likely to be team leader because of increased workload, and good players end up not playing when they don't make the top 6 for a better team (it's happened to me and is exactly why I don't commit to playing the ladle). Ladle play would be more competitive if "reject" players could be picked up by less organized teams. Not sure why these rules were created, but then, I guess I don't care enough to find out. I could understand if they were used for a yearly competition, but for a monthly competition it's silly.
*no plans to come back to read comments, hence only 2 cents
my 2 cents
Rules stated in this thread seem to make ladles less interesting/competitive. People are less likely to be team leader because of increased workload, and good players end up not playing when they don't make the top 6 for a better team (it's happened to me and is exactly why I don't commit to playing the ladle). Ladle play would be more competitive if "reject" players could be picked up by less organized teams. Not sure why these rules were created, but then, I guess I don't care enough to find out. I could understand if they were used for a yearly competition, but for a monthly competition it's silly.
*no plans to come back to read comments, hence only 2 cents
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
What im still wondering is that if we had lost to revolver i dont think this topic would have been created...
Anyways, i was logged the entire ladle under gwoep@forums, i wasnt added anywhere else than team baylife, and i wasnt even team leader, i didnt break any rules and as far as i know its not forbidden to play under aliases, wanna punish me for what?...
Anyways, i was logged the entire ladle under gwoep@forums, i wasnt added anywhere else than team baylife, and i wasnt even team leader, i didnt break any rules and as far as i know its not forbidden to play under aliases, wanna punish me for what?...
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
This is all getting a bit crazy... Having had Tank's helpful 24+ hours to think about it a little, a reaction needed to happen, but this prolonged discussion is all a bit over dramatic. It's a bit grey as to who broke what rules and where, and even then it's not like these exact rules haven't been crossed before (without retribution)
What I'd like to point out, as a clan leader, is that although these guys 'deceived' the community, the people they let down were the clans/teams they are a part of. The logical conclusion therefore, is that it is the clans/teams who serve up the punishment. If we were to ban these players next ladle, it would be punishing the clan/team as much as the Baylife Players
In SP for example, next ladle we potentially have 3 Baylife players in our squad. Those 3 players are the difference between 1 and 2 teams, which if they're suspended, will lead to 4/5 other players not getting to play in the ladle
I appreciate the desire to see consequences for the poor behaviour, and other than a ladle suspension, there seems very little that can be done. But I urge people to consider the knock-on effects this will have for other players when making their votes. It's not fair for players who, after being disappointed with their fellow clan/team (+ Baylife) members, would also get to miss a ladle as a result. And all because of a punishment which in a lot of people's eyes seems a little over the top anyway
As I said previously, I'll happily oblige with the community's final decision
(If anyone mentions the 'SP conspiracy' again, I'll go outside and punch a small animal)
What I'd like to point out, as a clan leader, is that although these guys 'deceived' the community, the people they let down were the clans/teams they are a part of. The logical conclusion therefore, is that it is the clans/teams who serve up the punishment. If we were to ban these players next ladle, it would be punishing the clan/team as much as the Baylife Players
In SP for example, next ladle we potentially have 3 Baylife players in our squad. Those 3 players are the difference between 1 and 2 teams, which if they're suspended, will lead to 4/5 other players not getting to play in the ladle
I appreciate the desire to see consequences for the poor behaviour, and other than a ladle suspension, there seems very little that can be done. But I urge people to consider the knock-on effects this will have for other players when making their votes. It's not fair for players who, after being disappointed with their fellow clan/team (+ Baylife) members, would also get to miss a ladle as a result. And all because of a punishment which in a lot of people's eyes seems a little over the top anyway
As I said previously, I'll happily oblige with the community's final decision
(If anyone mentions the 'SP conspiracy' again, I'll go outside and punch a small animal)
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
No one cares about sp or any other clan
No one wants to see anyone banned, or like last time the majority doesn't
People are disappointed on a personal level about being deceived & then all the bs that comes after with people trying to save as much face as possible. In reality everyone knows what went down & why
Hope it was worth it dupki
No one wants to see anyone banned, or like last time the majority doesn't
People are disappointed on a personal level about being deceived & then all the bs that comes after with people trying to save as much face as possible. In reality everyone knows what went down & why
Hope it was worth it dupki
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
Just want everyone to know I told Woned about this beforehand, so I didn't 'deceive' CT.
Re: PM Vote Trial for Ladle 57
I’ve been waiting for a time to get into the conversation and I guess this is as good as any. It is not the job of the arma community to legislate clan drama. It is also not our job to legislate on rules that haven’t been created yet (i.e. aliases) unless there is some significant issue at hand where the spirit of the rules has been violated or the integrity of the ladle has been damaged. If you are voting to ban someone for one of these issues, you are doing it wrong.
Something that the arma community should do is to legislate based on the rules. The main rule at hand here is the one of signing up for two teams. It was broken. It’s the job of the community to choose who is to blame and how much to punish (if at all) said people. So when people vote, I want people to keep this in mind. Read the posts people have made here and make a vote based on who you think broke the rules, not based on some clan drama or whatever other problems you have coming in.
Also, if people think we should ban aliases, we can put it up for a vote. But this current vote is not the time.
Something that the arma community should do is to legislate based on the rules. The main rule at hand here is the one of signing up for two teams. It was broken. It’s the job of the community to choose who is to blame and how much to punish (if at all) said people. So when people vote, I want people to keep this in mind. Read the posts people have made here and make a vote based on who you think broke the rules, not based on some clan drama or whatever other problems you have coming in.
Also, if people think we should ban aliases, we can put it up for a vote. But this current vote is not the time.