and we all love clanbase...
•
30 Nov 2010, 15:05
•
Journals
...or clownbase.
Summarise what happened:
- reliably can't play at the arranged time 23cet
-> we accept to play at 21cet if we can play with Boss (he played 1 EC match)
-> they accept it
-> 4-0 win for us
we don't wanna win with noshow to be fair
Lion our friend of CB:
- "U were not allowed to play with boss"
- "Follow the rules"
- his decision: Rematch
Conclusion:
Don't be nice anymore to the opponent. You better win with no-show!
Ps: hard to say but I miss the killerboy-times: "You rup'd so you agree with this"
Ps2: No offense against reliably <3 u played it fair, it was a good deal
Ps3: Lion, http://clanbase.ggl.com/warinfo.php?wid=10436100 , don't see in the rules where we can win with 8-0
#AntiClimax.et because gaming makes u cute :$
Summarise what happened:
- reliably can't play at the arranged time 23cet
-> we accept to play at 21cet if we can play with Boss (he played 1 EC match)
-> they accept it
-> 4-0 win for us
we don't wanna win with noshow to be fair
Lion our friend of CB:
- "U were not allowed to play with boss"
- "Follow the rules"
- his decision: Rematch
Conclusion:
Don't be nice anymore to the opponent. You better win with no-show!
Ps: hard to say but I miss the killerboy-times: "You rup'd so you agree with this"
Ps2: No offense against reliably <3 u played it fair, it was a good deal
Ps3: Lion, http://clanbase.ggl.com/warinfo.php?wid=10436100 , don't see in the rules where we can win with 8-0
#AntiClimax.et because gaming makes u cute :$
stop whining
gtfo?
prefer kb above this strict following of the rules :(
I even thought it was written in the rules , after checking it isn't ;(
it's written about both agreeing a server and shit but not about a player
The rule was way way before him :D
case closed?
it doesn't say anywhere that you can use a merc, it's your own stupid mistake, you could've taken someone from a lower or your own league and add him to APL anytime
They could have gotten a forfeit if they didn't agree to reshedule since they didn't have their fifth at 21 prolly (hence they said 'if we can play with boss')
caps and bold there to help you out
It's like Thomm said a few comments below, they wanted to bend the rules just abit to help out their opponent. From what I'm reading he is not complaining about the rules, but about the fact that there is no room for abit of leniency considering the circumstances. He obviously knows it's partially their own fault for wanting to help out the opposition.
I'm beginning to think you are interpreting things just so you can make one of those sour, grumpy remarks you always seem to like so much.
the rules can be bent in some situations but this is clearly not one of them for a good reason and they did not bend the rules in any way to help out the opponent
I don't know what you've been reading but this is not about being their fault for helping out the opponent, it's about them being too stupid to follow the rules
I'm beginning to think you're just plain thick
Allthough I do think that LION made the best decision an admin could have made in this case, it still puts the victory of the winning team at risk. A risk which wouldn't have been present if they would have claimed the forfeit.
However blaming LION (who actually made a great decision) is simply unfair. He made the best out of the situation, he combined rules with flexibility.
You are just stating the obvious, yet this journal is not about the fact that they used a member who also played in a higher league. Where does it say that what Lion decided is against regulation or that they were too stupid to follow the rules (as you so kindly put)?
In agreement with their opponent they tried to bend the rules just a bit so that this game could actually be played instead of forfeited. Allthough it would have been smarter if they had asked an admin before the game, it's still a shame that sportsmanship is punished. That's what this journal is about, not about the rules being forced.
I admit the journal title and the first 'ps' might be confusing, but the content of the journal is quite illuminating. He literally stated what he learned from this in a conclusion.
(Copying my sentence structure and replacing a few words does not make a reply witty)
?????????????????????????????
But you have a valid point when you say they could have used another player.
(random question: Do EC qualifiers count as higher league games?)
we played vs a team who didnt have slac guids, we could have waited till 10 minutes after starting time and whine about forfeit but instead we rupped, later on, their friends kicked us during the match, so we demanded a forfeit cuz of the kick + wrong guids but goldorak told us we agreed on guids by rupping + we should just rematch
seriously gtfo fucking idiots and come back when ur done crying and readin some rules
always thought that "but we all agreed" thing is kinda stupid. then you could also allow one wallhacker per team :D
douuche
not true anymore, check webe and sungi sucking up to him :)
Admins rather have no-shows =)) Makes the cups alot more active!
according to the rules....
"If the player would NOT have been allowed even if he was on the Allowed Players List then the clan and player receive a Red Card (and forfeit the match). "
... you should have lost.
However, LION took your "good deed" of rescheduling into concideration. So he decided to let you guys rematch the game. LION's way of taking this decision is not stated in the rules. Therefore be carefull before you accuse CB of not being flexible.
btw the "once you rup you accept who you're playing" is only a ladder rule, not a cup rule.
The admins decided to allow these players so the game would be played and not result in a forfeit, don't ask me to give examples, cause I cba to browse through gtv, but I do know this happend quite a few times before.
- aClmx could only play on 23 cet, because only then vyper was avi
- reliably couldnt play then so they asked if aClmx wanted to resched
- aClmx could only resched if I was allowed
- so both teams decided what was best for every1 and played the game at 21 cet with me
- after the game, no1 complains, but then all of a sudden an admin says it should be replayed? how does that make sense, both teams agreed, no1 is complaining, but yet the admin is making a mess, makes no sense to me tbh
Honestly I dont even care about this OC, (but I do about aClmx). I just played so the game wouldnt end up in yet another shitty forfeit, but I dont see the use of an admin making problems here
"hey admin we played 4v4 cos both of teams agreed our 5ths couldn't play, both teams agreed so no need for admin"
and this season there were no exceptions what-so-ever, you can search for years and you won't find a single match breaking this rule.
you broke the rule and that's all that matters, agreements with the teams doesn't mean jack unless you notified an admin before hand and gave you the 'go ahead' and/or it is listed in the rules (like when both teams agree to reschedule to a new date), breaking the rules i.e letting mercs play is nowhere listed in the cup rules and since no exception was given how do you expect the admin not to do his work? might as well let the teams supervise the cups and the admins do nothing, it would be like having football matches without referees, because both teams agreed to play without offside or with an illegible/banned player.
I, as an admin (wich I've only been in some random cups, so no real experience whatsoever), would be glad if teams decide to do such a thing to avoid forfeits
this is just a question, not meant as any criticism, just wondering why you would do it
i don't think there's much wrong with allowing this rule in random one day cups, as you said they're "random" and it's more about having a "good time" than "serious business ec/oc" teams which are competing and praccing 'hard' to a certain degree.