Ladle 97

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

Moderator: Light

User avatar
Pre
Average Program
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Pre »

Overrated wrote:We decided to void the initial one Magi had reset, and took appleseed's new match start as them being ready. It might not have been the best option and choice, but the amount of delay that was caused by their team was enough to make both the spectators and our team frustrated as we wanted to get things moving again.
Most of us (including our team leader) said "not starting". At that point some of us weren't even in the server, or in the team yet. I'm pretty sure we were down to 4 people playing at that time.
So i don't see how that is justified just because apple started a new match to prevent Magi from restarting the match on his own. Also, he added the score mid-round, so we didn't even have a chance to set up or play seriously, as we were all talking and trying to solve the problem.
Image

User avatar
ppotter
Match Winner
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Ladle 97

Post by ppotter »

If you're not ready just say so; using start_new_match implies that you're ready to start.

As a spectator I was definitely under the impression that m&m wanted to pause when it was lagging.
Koala wrote:It seems as if everything is ok as long as Magi got what he wanted. It's sad that all the people in that server just stood aside when Magi abused his power and banned us all from the server for no reason. We had not done anything offensive to anyone, yet he chose kick us all and proceeded with the ladle as if nothing had happened. It was a very unpleasent experience for all of us and I'm sure no one in our position would be fine with it.
I don't imagine anyone else will end up in that position, since it stemmed from your teams obnoxiousness. From what I saw of m&m before and during the game, I find it hard to sympathise.

User avatar
echo.bot
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:59 pm
Location: Fairfield, IA
Contact:

Re: Ladle 97

Post by echo.bot »

vov wrote:@Krikio: both team leaders agreed to a pause at 90-70 (http://i.imgur.com/gmGdhco.png), but during the downtime, not getting ready, when the match score hit 100 your team claimed to have won the match. Afterwards there was about 10 minutes of useless banter and then we finally got on with it. We wouldn't have been able to if not for Magi since echo.bot, the other present mod, had no clue what was going on and kept distracting and bantering too.
Later in the finals, appleseed also, amongst other actions, silenced Gazelle, captain of Redemption (http://imgur.com/bOji0ge), to disrupt the tournament even more.

Deal with it. You lost. Your team should be ashamed for needlessly delaying the tournament. Don't ever do it again.

I think appleseed as the captain of that rotten team should be banned from the ladle for his actions today.
Not sure if there's a way to punish the others on his team as well.
You sir are not impressing anyone by insulting me as mod. I was the only one trying to remain impartial and not abuse my admin power. Furthermore all logs we have access to will be posted here publicly by the server owner. Can we let the organizers decide how this should go down? Anyhow, for anybody else with constructive input such as logs, screenshots etc, please post them here. As for name calling and whining and insulting people, I believe this should not be tolerated and is poor sportsmanship and only shows the level of maturity involved or lack thereof.

User avatar
echo.bot
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:59 pm
Location: Fairfield, IA
Contact:

Re: Ladle 97

Post by echo.bot »

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.

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

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Overrated »

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.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4188
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Word »

I usually pick a side when I try to articulate my opinion, but here I can't really see why you all don't just forget it.
As for DDoS attacks and unorganized teams/admins and teams who are perceived as impolite or aggressive by one side or the other, there will always be situations like this. As long as they stick to the rules, I have no problem with that, and to me, that's even part of the fun. It seems clear to me that nobody had bad intentions here and it were simply unfortunate circumstances that caused this mess. Perhaps work on a solution for future ladles instead of accusing one another?


Otherwise I don't see how anything productive can come out of this.

(I agree that certain m&m members were VERY annoying, but that's nothing new and seems irrelevant here...)

User avatar
echo.bot
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:59 pm
Location: Fairfield, IA
Contact:

Re: Ladle 97

Post by echo.bot »

Overrated wrote:
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.
Most of the time you play until the server dies. Just like in any other match, tournament etc. Much the same as golf. Play it as it lies, play through the rough, rain etc. In this instance, the lag had started way before anyone even mentioned it. What I was trying to get across was that they should just play that second round over again from 0. This would have solved the problem for everyone. The response, the arguing, the name calling and the kicking and banning that were done BY A PLAYER OF ONE OF THE TEAMS IN QUESTION is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the rules and is INEXCUSABLE. At this point I don't care about everyone's POINT OF VIEW, I care about FAIRNESS, FOLLOWING THE RULES & PROPER GUIDELINES REGARDING MODERATION. Damnit Magi, why did you have to deflate the balls?!?

User avatar
Magi
Match Winner
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Magi »

echo.bot wrote:Damnit Magi, why did you have to deflate the balls?!?
#FreeMagi

You said the second round should have been restarted, even if that would be "fair" it would then be 1-0 still, not 1-1, but with the time schedule at hand, already 2 hours late, do you really think anyone there wanted to start the second match over. Had the score actually been say 90 - 70 and m&m was the one winning at the time of the disconnect I imagine everyone in R would have been fine with the start of the third match being 1-1, even if it's unfair to R not to get to finish that match. But seeing as how we were up 90-70 at the time of the attack, we saw it in no way fair for the match to be won by m&m while no one could play a stable game.

As for what Over said, I have no intention of letting any of my members or any other players take the blame for my actions. I was the one who chose to do what I did and I will take full responsibility for what the community thinks should be done about it.

But I think the more pressing matter at hand should be focusing on what to do about the DDoS and how to make future ladles better for everyone so situations like this one don't arise every month.

Also I had no actual intention of banning anyone, I was unaware that /admin kick cause a 5 minute ban.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

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

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Overrated »

In fairness, I believe Magi did not know a kick would result in a five minute ban iIrc.

Did you ignore the point I mentioned where every other match had restarted from the time of the attack? CT vs R was delayed this way as was one of the initial matches vs m&m. Why is it wrong for us to expect a pause when we did the same exact thing our first match against them? That's hypocritical. It benefits them so they should be able to keep the match going? No thank you, as I said, you didn't have all the information and making a well-founded decision was not within your reach at the time, and clearly still is not. We had a basis from the first few DDoS attacks, so we followed that. If we weren't already so late, we might have just accepted the 1-1 and continued on. Again, we feel we would have won.

Let's hold off on any more discussion until the recordings come out. Maybe at that point when all of the information is out there we can put things behind us and realize what the best option was.

The real discussion is the DDoS attacks. Someone mentioned a good idea during the ladle, but I do not recall what it was. Let's figure it out and implement what it was.
BRAWL dead. RIP.

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

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Ratchet »

At first, I read this and figured you'd all get it sorted out and whatever blah blah. But, I couldn't help it.

echo.bot: lol... I can't take you seriously. You're acting like you've been presiding over the ladle for the last 10 years. You seriously remind me of Roger Goodell. "I don't care what you saw, I'm right and you're wrong"

@ Situation:

I thought I understood at first, but it seems like I was wrong. Are you guys saying that M&M won the first match? I don't think that was ever clarified. If M&M won the first match and you guys claimed the second because you were up 90-70 (which it seems like is what happened) when the server lagged out, I absolutely agree with M&M's side of things and think Magi should be banned from playing for at least one ladle, and moderating for many more. If your team didn't even completely win a match, you cannot possibly claim to have won the entire series just because the other team was being annoying.

Now, on the other hand, if R won the first match then you guys are just bickering to be annoying. If R was willing to take the loss for the second match even though they likely would have won, there is no way in hell they should have put up with this nonsense. It's pretty ridiculous that things were dragged out this far.

TL;DR: Who won the first match? That's all that really matters.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
ppotter
Match Winner
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Ladle 97

Post by ppotter »

R won the first match, they were winning the second 90-70 at the time of the 'pause'.

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Vogue »

if you're actively playing in a team for ladle you shouldn't be allowed to discipline the team you're playing against in any way shape or form, even if you have the mod/admin powers to do so

#freeliz

User avatar
pike
Round Winner
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:53 pm
Location: where polar bears walk the streets

Re: Ladle 97

Post by pike »

Gz Rogue.

I forgot what server we played most of our game, but it was +1 ;)

User avatar
Magi
Match Winner
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Magi »

pike wrote:Gz Rogue.

I forgot what server we played most of our game, but it was +1 ;)
I think CT's USA is where we played match 3 in with the least amount of attacks
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

User avatar
Plee
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Ladle 97

Post by Plee »

Yes, good matches Rogue, it's always a pleasure to play against you. We never really struggled whenever the server was about to crash. Althought we had to switch 3 times it was always fluently because we always agreed amongst teamleaders.

I'm sure Rogue acted as reasonable as they could.

That being said, I'm fully agreeing with what Word said.
I usually pick a side when I try to articulate my opinion, but here I can't really see why you all don't just forget it.
As for DDoS attacks and unorganized teams/admins and teams who are perceived as impolite or aggressive by one side or the other, there will always be situations like this. As long as they stick to the rules, I have no problem with that, and to me, that's even part of the fun. It seems clear to me that nobody had bad intentions here and it were simply unfortunate circumstances that caused this mess. Perhaps work on a solution for future ladles instead of accusing one another?

There's a reason why you guys are arguing and it seems you're looking at the wrong one.

Right now the main discussion should be how to avoid DDoS attacks and get the competition going on back fluently.

As for CT's USA +1
Image

Post Reply