A team in the top 3 has had half of their side wiped out for a week on the basis of mere technicalities that could have been enforced server-side. A simple white list of those eligble to play could be easily added to the .cfg prior to a ladder match, meaning that no unauthorised players could join the game. This would extend to spectators as well.

Now, I'm not advocating that players should not read and understand the rules in full prior to competing on the CG ladder - that is a given. I'm just asking for some common sense to be applied to the rules, and allow for the bending of them when the need arises.

This is exactly what happened the other night, and it resulted in half of the #2 team being suspended from the ladder for a week. I was asked by another team to subsitute in for them, seeing as they only had three players. The opposing team had no objections to a substitute.

Even though the result of this match has been upheld, I have been suspended for a week because I was "smurfing" - apparently consent by both teams does not matter. If there is no room for movement in the rules, and the rules are enforceable server-side, then why not block people from joining altogether?

While we're on rubbish technicalities, another member of GenetiX (Ninja) joined the game as a spectator for all of three minutes. When asked to leave by the other team, he did so. This was during ready-up and before any play had even begun. Even so, he has also been banned for a week.

As a consequence of this hard-line stance on the rules, even in the absence of server-side enforcement, GenetiX has been forced to forfeit their rank of second to TBC without playing, because we can not field the players.

If enforcing rules carte-blanche is what this ladder is about, as opposed to accurate rankings, then I put it to the readers of this that the ladder is not fulfilling its purpose.

Please, let's have some common sense applied to the rules!

Bullshit you've been forced to forfeit to us. I said we wanted to play you guys because we've lost to you twice and the last time was just because I crashed on NM5. So we are eager for another match.

I'm fine with rescheduling to Thursday if thats when you'll have your 4. But we didn't really discuss that much. What happened was we started talking about this rematch you are trying to get with CBC because they used an ineligible player. I had a bit of a dig at you for what you are doing and you got the shits, accepted the latest possible time we offered and don't even plan to turn up. You're just being an arsehole so it will close to two weeks before we get another CG match.

I also find it pretty hypocritical that you are talking about how your team has been affected by stupid rules and technicalities when you are trying to get a rematch with CBC because one of their players was ineligible. If common sense was applied to that rule then wouldn't there be no issue because you played the whole match and chose not to dispute it? But now you've since been suspended and you've decided that well technically CBC did break a rule even though you were fine with it at the time and should be forced to replay the match.



And a white list for the server is a bad idea and would be hard to organise. If its a cubos server, you had to put a password in, its running CEVO and there are 12 slots then all thats probably a pretty good give away that its a CG match. If all that fails then you could just ask if it is a CG match or just look at the name of the server...

Pretty much exactly what Insano said. You never mentioned anything about Vekta playing until after you were suspended, which was like 4 days after. You obviously knew of this before hand, and to add to it, I have been told that a captain of yours gave the ok for him to play.

In regards to your ban, you played a match for another team. Although you did use your own name, this doesn't mean you can just play for your team monday, then hope the other team is fine with you playing again on thursday for a totally different team. Also, Ninja had no reason to join a ladder match that his team was not a participant in.

I, for one, was not aware that Vekta was considered "Ineligible" to play. How is it that you can have a Bot that scans the server and points out "Smurfers" but not those who are "Ineligible". Pretty sure it can be done and has completely baffled me as to why it is not done since I had not known or approved Vekta playing.
However, I have no problem with CBC being in the #1 spot as I feel they deserve it.


Actually, I accepted Wednesdays because it was our only available day. As it is, we are only able to play two days of the week, and one of those days in this upcoming week I have to work on, so it was a pretty easy decision for me to make.

Again, I wasn't aware that he was Ineligible, nor was I informed by the other team. If you are going to enforce the rules to the letter, then I believe we should have won that game on a forfeit as I, the captain of the opposing team, had not accepted this 'Ineligible' player to participate.

Please refer to http://live.gotgames.com.au/ - Their servers are not passworded, and only allow those who are SCHEDULED to play to join, otherwise you just get auto-kicked, hence I have to say it is NOT hard to organise, nor a "bad idea". May I add, that was coded by ONE person, clearly not too difficult...


And here's another thing. What is to stop someone from using another person's account to play a match, since your "Super-intelligence-auto-ban-scanning-machine" only looks at SteamID's. It seems you are falling behind the Eight-Ball using archaic methods of rule enforcement...

tldr; version:

Long story short, it's a stupid predicament to be in, You either enforce the law to the letter, or you allow for some common sense to be applied. It seems you have done both however...

Hard-Line: Banned for spectating a Ready-up and then leaving
Common Sense: Allowing someone Ineligible to play.

I'm not fussed, we'll play TBC with our reserve line-up. Or I could just add someone to my roster and use him and ignore the "Ineligible" status as that rule seems to not be enforced.

Again, CBC are cool, very skilled players with an easy-go attitude, and I'm not having a dig at them, it's more me having a dig at the rules and TBC's attitude.

Edited once, 29/8/09 - 11:22am.

woop woop being banned, I am ineligible to play, by CG logic that means I can play in either match.




/thread

That was taken out of context. I was actually saying "yup" to something else not included in that brief slice of the transcript. Also, Captain Insano, if you are recording chat logs then you have a legal responsibilty to inform the person that you are recording the conversation. Since you did not do this, I would advise you not to place any more transcripts of private conversations onto public forums...


I was not made aware of Vekta's ineligibility until yesterday. And yes, whilst it seems a trivial matter, and whilst we ordinarily wouldn't have disputed the match based solely on a player's ineligibilty, I would argue that spectating a ready-up is also fairly trivial...

Also, which Captain said this? Neither myself, generiK nor Ninja remember saying anything about Vekta's eligibility or otherwise. Last time I checked, we have 3 captains...

And just because a team captain says it's ok, that doesn't make it right under the rules of the ladder. Take my suspension for example. Let's have a bit of consistency, please.

Edited twice, last edited 29/8/09 - 2:06pm.

Well Chop Gun was telling me that GTX wouldn't play because you wouldn't have your best 4 playing and would give us the 1-0 win that way we haven't actually beaten you. He's even written "enjoy your win by default" in the private chat when the match was accepted. Maybe now its on the forum you guys have decided you will play with the 4 you have available. Like I said though, I'll gladly reschedule for Thursday. The only reason I havent requested yet is because you accepted wednesday and then told me you weren't turning up. The rematch with CBC also seemed a bit up in the air so I was also trying to find out what was happening with that first so we know if we would play you before or after the rematch if it happens.


The rule is this:

A player may not play in a match if in your team profile for L4D says that you are ineligible to play. Teams can reach a gentleman's agreement to let an ineligible player compete.

So that agreement has obviously been reached with at least one of your captains. But if what you are saying is true then that information just hasn't been communicated between all your captains. Which isn't CBC's fault. You guys are just being dicks because of your suspensions.

QQ more, none of us were informed stop assuming things please.


An interesting side note: I dont care that I got banned; I lol'd, I'm over it. The point is that we must argue for democracy, this isn't a totalitarian community where the members fall to the whims of one capt. insano, or any other member for that matter. The rules say what they say, that's fine we broke them we are taking the wrap. What we ARE saying, is that we weren't informed by any team member than any one was ineligible and playing from cbc, we found out from a third party source, who thought it was unfair that we would get the book thrown at us, and other teams seem to slip through the cracks.

Also, for future reference; I'd do a little more research before you go spouting "facts".

Edited once, 29/8/09 - 2:27pm.

haha what shit. I didn't take anything out of context. Want a screenshot of it? This is getting ridiculous.

In the absence of Ninja and I, we will only be able to field two of our reserves and generiK.

That's nice of you. It's a shame that we're banned until Friday...

That's news to me.

That was a private conversation and I want it kept private. I'm not going to say it again...

well im only saying Thursday because you told me the earliest you and Ninja can play is Thursday 9pm. Do I need to post that quote also?

lol @ this thread, the funniest ones are always when legal action is inferred

Privacy has no bearing on people using pseudonyms bl

Mediator, anyone?

Whats going on in dis fred

What I know:

• I asked generiK if Vekta could play even though he had only just recently joined our CG team.
  
• He was fine with this and I don't know why generiK is playing dumb now.
  
• I can produce screenshots of this; call it intuition or prior experience with bullshit before.
  


• I have been banned (some time ago) for one week because I was a spectator in a (-cbc!) game, in which I clearly could not have provided information to my team via... anything.
  
• At the time this was considered "irrelevant", which I find stupid as the rule clearly exists to stop information leaks and unwanted annoyances.
  


• Crazy Bill Forever was screwed over when it turned out several members couldn't play and they had to play 3v4
  
• They lost this match, obviously, but we didn't sub in because we knew how technical the rules are AND that for example if I subbed in the outcome of the game would have change significantly as compared with a 4th -cbf! member at the time.
  


• Chop Gun spoofing for the other team, whilst being honest about it, most likely would have changed the outcome of the game.
  
• Chop Gun should cop the ban and teach his clan the harsh lesson the same way I did.
  


• Ninja being in there and unable to give information likens to my ban and I believe it should be looked at practically, not robotically.
  


• If only Chop Gun is banned then they can field most of their 'A-team', including Ninja and put Rhyme or someone else in Chop's place.
  

I don't want Crazy Bill Clan to get involved any more than it already has been as we're in the clear. Though I do understand exactly where GTX is coming from, saying, well if this technicality which the other team was okay with gets us banned, then this technicality with cbc that WE were okay with, should be a ban for them too. (They don't WANT us banned, they want themselves unbanned.)

I know a recent re-work of the rules has gone by, but it would be nice if the rules here represented something, like justice or fairground competitive gaming.

Edited once, 29/8/09 - 3:27pm.