Ladle 57

[ElmosWorld]

For all the people complaining about it, did you not have a fun time trying to figure it out?

I knew it before... but some Over and some Elmo told me nonono mYm remake

hahaha sorry for believing they wouldnt lie. my bad. mecca and weed didn't help either...

[DDMJ]

[PokeMaster]

Nice firedurk

Your message contains 14 characters. The minimum number of characters you need to enter is 21.

[þsy]

Durka plays league of legends too?

[dreadlord]

Can anybody move this to off-topic?

[1200]

breaking a couple procedural rules

That sounds like cheating to me!

Large teams will sometimes add their entire roster to the Challenge Board, especially if they don't know who will actually show up. These extra players might not get a chance to play on their own team, so it's in everyone's best interest if they can be used as substitutes for an incomplete team. That's the intention behind substitution, which is not the same as player-switching to get an advantage in the brackets (though substitution can be cleverly abused).

Well i think it reduces even defeats the purpose of listing the players for the sign up.
And if this rule can be cleverly abused to get an advantage in the brackets then I think it would be better if this if this was disallowed.
If the extra players on big teams are not allowed to play for another team it encourages them to make their own team which is also good for the growth of the competition.
I think part of the challenge is to come with the full team on the day. This rule benefits the team that couldn't show with the full team more than the team that could.

We regularly have votes on the rules was this rule actually voted in?

[Slickster]

I agree with everything u just said above 1200

[Venijn]

Spose I'll bring this back off topic!

[sinewav]

Before I interject with my own thoughts, I want to point out what we all know; the Ladle works because of honesty and respect and good sportsmanship. Without that we would slide down the slope to cheating on massive scales, probably including modified clients and such. We really don't have serious problems with the tournament, and that's great news.

I think part of the challenge is to come with the full team on the day. This rule benefits the team that couldn't show with the full team more than the team that could.

Too many restrictions on the Challenge Board might hurt too. I would hate to see Ladle victories decided not on skill, but because all six players showed up. I can imagine teams that are perpetually short one or two players, always losing because of it, then giving up on Fortress. Substitutes are a necessity for any team, but no one likes to sit on the sidelines. Not allowing extra players to fill-in is not very fun at all. We want everyone to play. That should be the most important part of Ladle -- getting everyone on the grid.

We can toss around a few ideas though. You never know when a potential improvement is just below the surface. Maybe we can restrict the number of players the Board to 7 (6+1 sub)? If all 6 players show up, the seventh can only substitute for a declared "open team?" This kind of micromanagement seems unnecessary and there is probably a way around it using aliases, which is what we saw last weekend.

We regularly have votes on the rules was this rule actually voted in?

Right now I'm too lazy to look at the records to find out. Not all rules are voted on. Some pass simply because there is no opposition.

[sinewav]

Global Ladle Stats attached.

Congratulations RoadRunnerZ on your first match wins! Keep up the steady progress.

[Phytotron]

there's a significant difference between cheating and breaking a couple procedural rules. Team Baylife had the same rubber as their opponents. They had the same cycle speed. They played in the same servers. When they killed an opponent it still counted for two points and when they got killed, their opponent still got two points. They did not cheat.

[Note, my comment isn't necessarily or specifically related to this hullabaloo; I'm not even entirely clear what it's about. I'm mostly responding to Concord's twisted logic. It may apply in principle, however.] Er, no, breaking rules, procedural or otherwise, in order to gain, or attempt to gain, an advantage is by definition cheating. Athletic programs get put on probation, to include various punishments, for stuff like that. Coaches suspended or fired, athletes suspended or fined, wins and championships vacated, for good reason. One could cite dozens of examples from just the last couple years, both amateur and pro. It doesn't matter one bit if, once on the field or court, they're still playing at the same locations, scoring the same value points, or using the same game clock. It's still cheating.


Fireworks?

[~Loki]

Wow, soo much controversy. All of this over some strategic thinking and dedicated silence.

Firstly, anyone signed or even not signed on the wiki is truly not on a team til the day of ladle. Countless times teams have ran to grab random subs from the grids to cover their emtpy slots. Sometimes even someone signed for one team played for another team instead because they were not needed on their original team.

Secondly, We@aagid was signed in, I think. As long as the captain is signed in the rest of the team is on it's own to be what name and login they choose. Even if The Avengers had the option to choose to disqualify this team, we would have chose not to.

The ladle is about fun and excitement, Baylife brought a new feel to the ladle this month. They managed to stand strong keep quiet and win the ladle. For this they should be lauded not shunned and punished.
Yes they deceived their own clans, and maybe not all of them did but, that is really for them to discuss.
As long as no one played for more than one team is it really that big of a deal where they were signed?

Gz Baylife

[Mecca]

GJ team Baylife.

REAL

REAL

REAL

REAL

[Venijn]

there's a significant difference between cheating and breaking a couple procedural rules. Team Baylife had the same rubber as their opponents. They had the same cycle speed. They played in the same servers. When they killed an opponent it still counted for two points and when they got killed, their opponent still got two points. They did not cheat.

[Note, my comment isn't necessarily or specifically related to this hullabaloo; I'm not even entirely clear what it's about. I'm mostly responding to Concord's twisted logic. It may apply in principle, however.] Er, no, breaking rules, procedural or otherwise, in order to gain, or attempt to gain, an advantage is by definition cheating. Athletic programs get put on probation, to include various punishments, for stuff like that. Coaches suspended or fired, athletes suspended or fined, wins and championships vacated, for good reason. One could cite dozens of examples from just the last couple years, both amateur and pro. It doesn't matter one bit if, once on the field or court, they're still playing at the same locations, scoring the same value points, or using the same game clock. It's still cheating.


Fireworks?

I disagree. The logic is not twisted. They did not cheat, they unfairly deceived their own clans. They still had to play well and beat formidable opposition to win.

[Syre]

I disagree. The logic is not twisted. They did not cheat, they unfairly deceived their own clans. They still had to play well and beat formidable opposition to win.

^ that.