Zenith wrote:Magi had started a new match with the score of 90-70. And though his claim that he stated "okay starting" may be true, that doesn't validate his actions whatsoever, given that no m&m team member had agreed to this. With this unexpected start, many of our members on ts feared that you guys would win the match and pull the "okay we won, finals now" in the heat of the moment. Therefore, we agreed that I should start a new match to prevent you guys from immediately 'winning', when we hadn't even resolved the earlier conflict. This was by no means an "okay, we're ready"—we would have said so otherwise. Unfortunately there was obviously a misunderstanding and the series of events that followed occurred. But we believe that this could have been prevented had Magi not initially started the match without m&m approval.
A misunderstanding is probably the best way to chalk it up in this instance. I understand the thought process, and I've been in that situation in R before where we haven't been ready and have been forced to start due to a time limit, one of the reasons I think we kept pushing things the way we did.
Zenith wrote:Despite the fact that the teams remaining in the contest were tired and frustrated after an arduous day filled with DDoS attacks (especially R), the course of actions taken by you guys was not justified. Yes, m&m may have a history of being unsportsmanlike depending on your perspective; we probably even acted like trolls at certain times today. But what we wanted was clear— to start a new match at 1-1. Over mentions that they "were insistent on restarting it as 90-70", and this is true. But at no point did we agree to this; you guys are guilty of taking our voice away from us, and even kicking our entire team just because it was "already late in the day" and you weren't getting what you wanted quick enough.
We were insistent, because we felt that was the fairest solution for what had happened, given there were multiple times this happened and that was what we had done, reset the scores to just before the attack. The first match we played against you guys and then the attacks happened, what did we do? We restarted at the fairest point, the score at the time of the attack, and occasionally the start of the round it had occurred. We also did this with CT for the multiple attacks we had while playing them. The attack came at a time where we were already running behind over 2 hours from where we were supposed to be according to the rules. Team leaders are supposed to come to a decision quickly. There was a bunch of unnecessary talking and we could not come to a consensus. At this point, we were waiting 15 minutes trying to get this resolved. I'm sorry but at this point we were just fed up, given we had to change servers for you guys multiple times at the start of the match, pushing it back at least another 15 minutes then. The limit is supposed to be 10 minutes, but obviously situations vary. If you couldn't get your 6 teammates in the server after 15 minutes of delay, then I don't know what to tell you.
The thing that happened here is we had received the worst end of the situation in which at least 2 or 3 people died early on immediately when the attacks happened. In this case, the sportsman-like option is to say pause, much like we had done in the first match against you guys and pick up when it had occurred. You guys were insistent on getting unnecessary points when we were still figuring out what to do because, as I had mentioned, at least half of you responded with pause immediately after it happened. No one would want to lose due to that happening. I am 100% positive we would have asked to restart 90-70 even if we had won that match while everyone was having a lag-fest, because it is the fairest and most sportsman-like option we could have done.
Between the overall delay caused by your team on both ends of the matches, we decided to make a decision that we deemed fair and the general
consensus of what to do if this were to happen. You guys only had five people there after 15 minutes of arguing, where was your 6th? Why wasn't your 5th joined? Again, it's important to keep things moving. We played multiple rounds against CT with 5 people due to either a miscommunication or Magi being a DDoS target, we didn't stop for one person, we stopped when it impacted both teams.
Once again, I would like to clarify. We probably would have been willing to just start at 1-1, we were very confident we could have won a third match, if we were given what we felt the proper respect and expectation in the situation given. Arguing for the sake of arguing solves nothing. We have a general consensus on how to solve these types of solutions, and if we had more mods around we could have had a proper discussion and likely followed this choice. It was unfair to continue a match in which both teams were being hurt by the conditions in which one was hurt more than the other. The issue of DDoS attacks should be put in the rules until the issue can be solved completely. At the time of an attack, the match will be restarted to the point amount of when the attack happened.
Did he make the best decision? Maybe not, and the kicking was probably excessive one way or another. We were just wanting the matches to continue and it was not fair to delay Redemption any longer when the argument was going in no direction.
Zenith wrote:Just because R and Rd wanted to get on with the tournament, things should not have gone this way. The culmination of careless mistakes by R to ignore us (when clearly rules were violated by them) makes me feel justified in saying that there should be some form of punishment for Magi, as the team leader and person who carried out the actual decisions.
I don't feel Magi did anything to terribly wrong under his moderator powers tbh. I think he may have done things a little quicker than expected, but the only thing he really used it for was to get the tournament back on track after a longer than necessary debate on the overall score. Again, rules say 10 minutes to get things situated, whether the other team is ready or not. We never came to a consensus, so we took the overall option between the four team leaders. Apple, Red, Magi all said yes to pause at the start of the attack. Mr was the only one to say no, and at this point his opinion should have been refused because he literally had just joined the server one round ago. That's 75%-25% towards pause at 90-70. We cannot continue playing with the amount of confusion that was going on.
If necessary, I'll take responsibility for Magi's actions, suspend me if you must, given I was one of the people insisting and pushing him to get the match completed and making him to do so. Magi does a lot for the ladle, and in general the other varying tournaments. Alienating one of the few, if not only person, willing to do so would just be silly and continue to kill the game. He did what he thought was best in the situation, regardless of how you stand.
echo.bot wrote:For the record this is what I saw (repost from wwclan.net forums):
By what I saw the game ended when the server suffered a DDoS attack. They however finished the round and the score was tied at 1 to 1. They moved to another server and claimed they agreed to pause. I did not see this and nobody agreed to it and they took some words out of context from a non team leader. When they moved to CompGuy's server they argued about it and then Magi kicked all of m&m and proceeded to play the final match with the other team. This was outright abuse of admin by Magi. Especially considering he was on the team that benefitted by said abuse.
I am not taking sides, I am only stating what I saw. If there is more to it that I did not see or evidence of unsportsmanlike conduct or server abuse, etc. Please state it here and provide any evidence to back up your claims. Insults and malicious comments or threats will not be tolerated.
The end of the "second" match in this scenario listed, did not finish completely without the influence of a DDoS attack. If you were watching at the time, you would notice the attack took place around the score of 90-70 with R winning, but the server did not crash until after the match had ended, in which we expected and were asking the entire time what server are we going to in order to finish the match. The image vov had posted here is enough evidence to support this case. Given it happened unexpectedly at a random AND critical point in the match, half of their team was at least in confusion, with mr being the only one saying no. When half of their team leaders, and one who wasn't even there except for the round prior (mr, by coincidence), are disagreeing, but half the team feels one way, it makes sense to expect a pause, so DGM asked what server we were changing to. All of this information in one picture, the score, the ask and request of pause, the confusion, and where we were moving to. We did not take words out of context from a non-team leader, we took it from at least half of their team saying pause.
After waiting 15 minutes (I've said this before in this post), we decided to just restart at 90-70. Appleseed then, instead of saying no no we're not ready, hit start_new_match instead. This is implying that they're now ready when they weren't before. A look at the rules states this fact entirely:
"Regarding times, if an opponent team has not shown up on time and the opponent team is not currently engaged in an earlier scheduled match, then the match can begin even if the opponent team is not full strength. A team can decide to give the opponent team a maximum of 10 minutes to prepare themselves. A forfeit is considered a bye. After the opening rounds, players may take no longer than 10 minutes between finals to organize themselves for the next match."
This is the key thing, we waited 15 minutes prior to our matches even beginning, and 15 minutes after the initial DDoS attack and were ready to play within a few minutes. If anything, the result should have been them forfeiting. Before the matches even started they refused to play in a server where we had no attacks for the last hour of play. We were insistent on starting and they said they would forfeit if they had to play there. The result? We didn't want them to forfeit and so we moved servers and had multiple attacks over the course of our matches. You're missing a lot of information and I understand you're trying to be impartial, but if they had started when they were supposed to, then this issue probably wouldn't have even taken place.
Tl;dr; m&m delayed the entire tournaments both ways, at the beginning and end of their matches with us, and should have theoretically been forfeiting. We didn't want them to forfeit and wanted to play, so we made arrangements and continued to move around servers, even when they continued to get DDoS'd just to accommodate their requests. I believe the option we had chosen was the fairest, and quickest way to handle things. I'm sorry things kind of sucked for m&m, but your voice wasn't the only one taken away, ours was to when we were trying to start the matches. I will keep in mind in the future that we accept your forfeit if you offer it, however.
BRAWL dead. RIP.
Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.