357 replies to this topic

[p4r4g0n]

To maximize impartiality, the unit representatives on the Tribunal will be from units not in Group 1. Finally managed to finalize the Tribunal composition and the proceedings will commence tomorrow.

Future communication on issue this will be via forum PM and restricted to the Tribunal and parties involved.

In the meantime, everyone take a step back and a deep breath .... please.

[Mr Pataks]

Speaking for DSA - we had trouble getting the numbers for our first match (on both sides). We rescheduled twice to resolve the problem. But if failing to get the correct numbers on both teams towards the end of the week - both teams should agree to bringing in an outside player.

Slight concessions should be made in good will - We had a screenshot with 214 ping - our opponent allowed us the win which was the honorable thing to do.

We would accept an outside player on the opposing team, but allowing it to go unannounced could set a precedent where registered teams don't matter and people just grab the best players who are on at any time.

Communication here is the key I'm sure we are all reasonable when the cards are on the table.

[Mr Pataks]

On another note - looking forward to your recordings Jay-Z and seeing the updated ladder standings

[Stonefalcon]

p4r4g0n, on 27 September 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

To maximize impartiality, the unit representatives on the Tribunal will be from units not in Group 1. Finally managed to finalize the Tribunal composition and the proceedings will commence tomorrow.

Future communication on issue this will be via forum PM and restricted to the Tribunal and parties involved.

In the meantime, everyone take a step back and a deep breath .... please.

Good thing I pointed that out to you when you asked me to be on tribunal, since TPL's position is directly affected by the outcome of the tribunal, we would have refrained from voting anyway.

This whole issue could have been resolved on the night, 256 only had to get written consent from ARMD to include Appogee for the evening.

Hopefully this can be resolved quickly so we can get on with the events.

[DeathlyEyes]

p4r4g0n, on 26 September 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

@mr bear Why was Appogee's name not on the roster from Day 1? FYI, the 13th was not penalized as the opposing team chose not to pursue it since the 13th didn't win any of the matches. Hence, it is not good justification for fielding an ineligible player.

Guys, this fielding of ineligible players stuff has to stop. The roster is there for a reason and there is nothing to stop teams from either postponing (with reasonable notice to the opposing team) or dropping 1 short.

Also, note that ping requirement which is STILL 215ms at this time (which can be dispensed with for marginal cases if opposing team agrees).

Administratively, I suggest that 256th concede the victory to ARMD for the third match due to the ineligible player. If ARMD & 256th cannot agree on this, I will have to initiate the Tribunal process on this matter.

Moving forward, all teams must strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria (or obtain opposing team's prior written consent for any exceptions) as all future breaches will be automatically treated as disputes regardless of whether any party initiates a formal protest.

p.s.

All teams should take this opportunity to review and update their rosters immediately and notify us of any additions. If you wish to add and field these new players next week, please get prior written OK from your opposing team.

Having gone through last week's EoM screenshots, 13th and 228th please get written prior consent from opposing teams to field players that may lead to future similar issues.

Tribunals? Might as well bring Roger Goddell bot into this.

[faultygear]

Edited by faultygear, 27 September 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[mr bear]

Hi Everyone,
It seems that the issue in my opinion is the precise following of the rules as listed in the league guidelines.

"Additions to the roster are permitted but the added team member will only be eligible to participate 2 weeks after written notification has been received by the Organizers."

We on the day itself had 3 players unable to play and had to make do with another unit member. Was that the right thing to do? It seems going by the wording of the league. NO. It was wrong. We should not have fielded Appogee and for that I apologize to ARMD. Did we inform ARMD? No. Again as it was last minute we did not did mention it to ARMD and based on previous league matches it appeared that it was alright to field a replacement player. (boy was I wrong). This I take full responsibility for as again my concern was more:
1. The league matches not drag another week or two trying to get my team members
2. I did not want to keep ARMD waiting as they were already there at the specified time.

So my question now is this. "Where do we go from here?"
I will not as Paragon suggest forfeit/concede the 3rd match as that makes no sense to my team. If the anger here is against us fielding an eligible player and not giving the 2 weeks notice as required than I will suggest that all 3 games be declared invalid and we have a rematch set at another time and date.

Else I will only point out that I did what I did in what I saw was the interest of the league and if we are to be penalized for this than I think it should apply to all the other teams that didn't adhere to the 2 week notice period in fielding last minute additions to the team (consent notwithstanding as it still violated league rules)

Edited by mr bear, 28 September 2014 - 12:12 AM.

[Rodel Ituralde]

Mr bear, firstly there is no anger against anyone, in fact it is not about emotions whatsoever. Secondly, I find it arrogant in the extreme that a player or unit attempts to dictate what it will or will not do, despite the rules or what the official decision may be pending the tribunal meeting.

I acknowledge your apology, however I believe it would have been much easier to notify ARMD and give us the choice as per competition rules. You should not assume things, especially as the assumption goes against the rules. If there was any ambiguity, an effort should have been made to clear it.

Also, if the official decision of the tribunal is that there be a rematch of any sort, I fail to see any justification for a rematch of ALL three matches as that just further penalizes ARMD unduly. ARMD is not at fault here. I would not be unhappy about a rematch of the 3rd match, however once again, I will leave that decision for the tribunal to deliberate.

[Em3r4ld]

Speaking from experience: Any new tournament like this is going to have teething problems, It's unavoidable. This is only made worse by the term "friendly" being thrown around. If you have rules, you stick to the rules or it undermines any future whatsoever. Furthermore, making it possible for teams to consent to breaking the rules is not healthy either. If it is a friendly tournament, why limit it so much. If it is competitive, why not stick to the rules?

Other than that, without taking the time to completely read the rules (I apologise in advance if everything I say from hereafter is not accurate)

Specifically for this case: IF Mr Bear had informed them beforehand, they'd almost certainly have accepted that he was going to use Appogee in the game. Why wouldn't they? No-ones complained at any substitutes so far, have they? So surely complaining about it now, just because they lost a game, is a bit unsportsmanlike as well. By pointing out the issue they've made themselves almost as at fault as the 256th. Unsporting not to mention the substitute, unsporting to complain about something that wouldn't have been an issue anyway.
Before saying anything else: Replaying just one match is absolutely ridiculous, I'm not sure how that fits in with trying to keep the rules upheld OR how it's at all fair to either side.



You seem to have several choices:
1) Replay the entire tournament and stick to the rules this time. Remove the whole "can break rules if consent" clause.
2) Replay every full set of matches that has fielded an illegible player (sounds like most of them so far!)
3) Modify the rules to allow a unlimited/larger roster. You clearly have a lot of issues with being able to organise the correct amount of people.
4) Give up before everyone gets any more enraged over it.


Just give some thought to how you want this to continue. It'd be a huge shame for fledgling competitions like this to go down the toilet so easily. It seems as simple as deciding whether or not you're being competitive or friendly... you can't really go half-and-half without causing issues for everyone. At least, potentially, people would know where they stand and it'd take less messing around.

I hope you manage to resolve this and go on without too many other issues. It is good to see some more competitive stuff going on.

[somenothing]

Don't see the point of rerunning only the match that ARMD lost. Why not the first or second?

Should the request have been to concede more points to them instead? That I can understand as penalty for breaking the rule of not changing player rosters without prior notification.

Is it the proper solution? I guess the Tribunal will tell us now.

Until then, I suppose the best use for Friday evenings after a long week of work is still good ole happy hour. Maybe we should've chugged an extra beer before starting those matches.

[Rodel Ituralde]

And I do not see the point of rerunning any of the matches. If you want to stick to the rules, then not only should ARMD receive the victory for all three matches, but 256th should receive a forfeit on all three matches, leading to a -1.5 point penalty. That ARMD is willing to let the first 2 matches stand, meaning 256th still receives 2 points for those, and willing to replay the 3rd if the tribunal doesn't penalize 256th is magnanimous, yet we are being labeled as unsportsmanlike-like. Astounding.

The first two matches should not be replayed because that would penalize ARMD, who is not at fault. I agree with Em3r4ld in so far that if you're going to have rules, stick to them, or dispense with them altogether.

[Rodel Ituralde]

Fact of the matter is, all I initially did was point out that 256th had an illegitimate player and had not notified us. I asked nothing, nor suggested anything. It is interesting to see so many people go on the defensive and/or attack ARMD for this. This is why I now insist on an official decision, which ARMD will abide by. We have not made any demands, or set down any ultimatums. We have not called anyone names, nor labeled anyone. We have entered into this competition in good faith and spirit, and this issue has certainly exposed the attitudes and maturity of certain parties. The rules on this issue are clear cut, and the consequences unambiguous, yet ARMD offering a replay on the third match is even further derided by some. Interesting.

I await the decision of the tribunal.

[Em3r4ld]

Blatant disregard? Seems more like an oversight at worst. It's not like they fielded Appogee just because they wanted to, or that he's some superpowerful being. Use some perspective here, please. What grounds would you have used to justify not allowing them to use him if they had informed you? It's merely an etiquette issue.

[JimmyT]

This is a game, right? I could be wrong. I'm sorry if I am.

[slide]

The tribunal will come to it's own conclusion and make a decision. The results stand or not based on the tribunals decision.

I would also suggest that in the future the organisers should personally review all match results to ensure that drop dec's and pilots comply with the rules. Both teams need to supply end of game screenshots. Failure to do so results in forfeiture. results are not final until after scrutineering.

Edited by slide, 29 September 2014 - 04:25 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Guys, it would be best to just let the Tribunal make it's judgement and keep quiet until then ... we all want to have fun, but we also are supposed to play by the rules ... let the process work, and then honor (or gripe about) the decision.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 28 September 2014 - 05:56 AM.

[p4r4g0n]

Sheesh ....

Sorry I haven't been able to advance the Tribunal proceedings as yet as weekends are usually not good times for me play wise ... not that I've been getting much time to play this weekend for reasons I will not name.

In the meantime, please stop with the insults, rage, etc as I am ultimately responsible for not enforcing the rules to the letter right from Week 01 as I thought that this being a first time for many a more lenient approach was needed.

Having said that, I'd reiterate what I posted earlier, re-check your rosters and make whatever additions you feel necessary NOW please. If you need to field a player from another unit, please amend your entry to modify your participation as a JOINT unit. Also I would re-emphasize the following:

• There is NO max size limit for a Team Roster
  
• Recently added players can be fielded IF the opposing team agrees prior to the match
  
• Players with variable pings that can drop below 215ms can be fielded provided the opposing team consents prior to the match

Apologies to anyone who feels that allowing exceptions to the rules are an issue but this segment of the MWO community comprises of people spread out over 6 different time zones, of more cultural backgrounds than I can count with my fingers and have internet connections of varying qualities.

[slide]

If asked we would likely have done one of these.

1. Allowed the non rostered player
2. Postponed the match
3. Considered dropping 3v3 out of fairness

But you know what? We were never asked.

Edited by slide, 29 September 2014 - 04:26 PM.

[Mr D One]

p4r4g0n, on 28 September 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

Sheesh ....

Sorry I haven't been able to advance the Tribunal proceedings as yet as weekends are usually not good times for me play wise ... not that I've been getting much time to play this weekend for reasons I will not name.

In the meantime, please stop with the insults, rage, etc as I am ultimately responsible for not enforcing the rules to the letter right from Week 01 as I thought that this being a first time for many a more lenient approach was needed.

Having said that, I'd reiterate what I posted earlier, re-check your rosters and make whatever additions you feel necessary NOW please. If you need to field a player from another unit, please amend your entry to modify your participation as a JOINT unit. Also I would re-emphasize the following:

• There is NO max size limit for a Team Roster
  
• Recently added players can be fielded IF the opposing team agrees prior to the match
  
• Players with variable pings that can drop below 215ms can be fielded provided the opposing team consents prior to the match

Apologies to anyone who feels that allowing exceptions to the rules are an issue but this segment of the MWO community comprises of people spread out over 6 different time zones, of more cultural backgrounds than I can count with my fingers and have internet connections of varying qualities.

(passes a headache tablet to p4r4gon)

[Mycrus]

Edited by Mycrus, 29 September 2014 - 06:46 AM.