Upvote Upvoted 29 Downvote Downvoted
1 2
ETF2L admin credibility
1
#1
0 Frags +

ETF2L admin credibility has been brought into question by this official http://etf2l.org/matches/74575/. Logs: http://logs.tf/2240852 http://logs.tf/2240874

From the information I have been given, the key points are:
1. The issue arises from Swi (premiership scout for team Mongi Mode / TorritSukinToes that unfortunately folded) playing scout in a division 2 official match for team Surstromming.

2. All mercs for medic being denied (literally all of them) by team Lithuanian Rhapsody. So team Surstomming had to play with their main scout on medic, and a sub scout on scout. (Subs on a team cannot be denied to play in a game, however they are also not denied entry to a roster of a lower division.) They swapped back (so main scout on scout, and sub on medic) second map, so that map is not in question.

3. Scheduling problems resulting in team Lithuanian Rhapsody requesting a reschedule to the next day after accepting a date already. They requested the date be moved to Thursday ON Wednesday after Sunday already being the accepted date. Team Surstromming denied this reschedule.

4. This being a playoffs deciding match.

5. Admins giving advice that affected a team negatively. One admin said that rather than replay the first map, Surstromming is told to play with Swi on medic. Even though Sustromming followed through with this, they still got a default loss for the map. If they had not heeded the advice of an admin, and rather forced a replay of the map then they would POTENTIALLY not be in the same position.

6.The golden cap, team Sustromming played with correct classes and won, so this raises the validity of the main concern of team Lithuanian Rhapsody, which is whether or not having a prem player in the game actually affected the outcome. In other words, the entire map of granary was not played with incorrect classes, so whether or not this should be a complete 3-0 point loss is very questionable.

So what is wrong with how this case was handled, and how can it be done better in the future? Firstly, the admin who handled it should be the only one who handles this case. Whether that was how it was handled, I am not aware. But this should be key. It prevents bias during the decision making process.

Secondly, both teams were aware of the potential of a problem with Swi on scout BEFORE the game began. However, neither team contacted an admin to ask about it. One team used it as leverage to get a default win, whereas the other used it to have a more experienced player on their team play the match. Both are just as bad in my opinion and should have no effect on the outcome. Obviously though, this was given some value for the team that reported the issue, when it shouldn't have been. Any admin that looked at chat logs or inquired about the issue would be able to see it.

Thirdly, the fact it is a playoffs deciding match should have no effect on how it is handled, but based on the words of admins, it was indeed taken into account. Every match is a playoffs deciding match, and should be treated with equal respect.

Fourthly, all mercs being denied resulted in Surstromming being forced to get their only available sub to be able to play the game. Whilst a team is justified in denying every merc, if the admins wish to remain consistent with the match being a playoffs deciding match, then they should have interjected when this arose. At the same time, Surstromming should have raised their problems to the admins, as should Lithuanian Rhapsody raised their concerns about scheduling problems. Both teams are at fault here (imo Lithuanian Rhapsody more so since denying all mercs forces a sub to play, whereas refusing to change the schedule a day before it would be booked us acceptable), but it looks like neither side is really accounted for, which is unfair in this situation.

Fifthly, team Sustromming did not play with incorrect classes for the entire map of granary, raising concerns as to whether or not team Lithuanian Rhapsody would have won the map even if everyone was playing correct classes.

Finally, what I believe is the main problem is that one admin gave advice to a team. This was then ignored and in fact, even though the team was advised by an admin to do something, it didn't have any affect on the results. The enemy team could still ask for a default win. This raises the main concern of inconsistency and whether or not ETF2L is a credible league.

I believe that the correct way to handle this as admins is to not give a default win. The admins should have forced team Lithuanian Rhapsody and team Sustromming to replay their granary week 7 official asap rather than give a default win. WITH Swi on medic. This ensures that the better team on the day will win the map. It remains consistent with all ideals stated by ETF2L admins, as well as being much more reasonable towards both teams.

Since I have few sources for this information, if any of the following 12 people wish to press their side (the 12 players in the official), their information is likely much more fair and reasonable than mine since they are first person viewers of this debacle. Team Surstromming: Daemon, _gar, Racso, Swi, z0diack, hamaham. Team Lithuanian Rhapsody: Foz, Five baz, Shpeeisme, NeuTronas, Detoed., tuja

ETF2L admin credibility has been brought into question by this official [url=http://etf2l.org/matches/74575/]http://etf2l.org/matches/74575/[/url]. Logs: http://logs.tf/2240852 http://logs.tf/2240874

From the information I have been given, the key points are:
1. The issue arises from Swi (premiership scout for team Mongi Mode / TorritSukinToes that unfortunately folded) playing scout in a division 2 official match for team Surstromming.

2. All mercs for medic being denied (literally all of them) by team Lithuanian Rhapsody. So team Surstomming had to play with their main scout on medic, and a sub scout on scout. (Subs on a team cannot be denied to play in a game, however they are also not denied entry to a roster of a lower division.) They swapped back (so main scout on scout, and sub on medic) second map, so that map is not in question.

3. Scheduling problems resulting in team Lithuanian Rhapsody requesting a reschedule to the next day after accepting a date already. They requested the date be moved to Thursday ON Wednesday after Sunday already being the accepted date. Team Surstromming denied this reschedule.

4. This being a playoffs deciding match.

5. Admins giving advice that affected a team negatively. One admin said that rather than replay the first map, Surstromming is told to play with Swi on medic. Even though Sustromming followed through with this, they still got a default loss for the map. If they had not heeded the advice of an admin, and rather forced a replay of the map then they would POTENTIALLY not be in the same position.

6.The golden cap, team Sustromming played with correct classes and won, so this raises the validity of the main concern of team Lithuanian Rhapsody, which is whether or not having a prem player in the game actually affected the outcome. In other words, the entire map of granary was not played with incorrect classes, so whether or not this should be a complete 3-0 point loss is very questionable.

So what is wrong with how this case was handled, and how can it be done better in the future? Firstly, the admin who handled it should be the only one who handles this case. Whether that was how it was handled, I am not aware. But this should be key. It prevents bias during the decision making process.

Secondly, both teams were aware of the potential of a problem with Swi on scout BEFORE the game began. However, neither team contacted an admin to ask about it. One team used it as leverage to get a default win, whereas the other used it to have a more experienced player on their team play the match. Both are just as bad in my opinion and should have no effect on the outcome. Obviously though, this was given some value for the team that reported the issue, when it shouldn't have been. Any admin that looked at chat logs or inquired about the issue would be able to see it.

Thirdly, the fact it is a playoffs deciding match should have no effect on how it is handled, but based on the words of admins, it was indeed taken into account. Every match is a playoffs deciding match, and should be treated with equal respect.

Fourthly, all mercs being denied resulted in Surstromming being forced to get their only available sub to be able to play the game. Whilst a team is justified in denying every merc, if the admins wish to remain consistent with the match being a playoffs deciding match, then they should have interjected when this arose. At the same time, Surstromming should have raised their problems to the admins, as should Lithuanian Rhapsody raised their concerns about scheduling problems. Both teams are at fault here (imo Lithuanian Rhapsody more so since denying all mercs forces a sub to play, whereas refusing to change the schedule a day before it would be booked us acceptable), but it looks like neither side is really accounted for, which is unfair in this situation.

Fifthly, team Sustromming did not play with incorrect classes for the entire map of granary, raising concerns as to whether or not team Lithuanian Rhapsody would have won the map even if everyone was playing correct classes.

Finally, what I believe is the main problem is that one admin gave advice to a team. This was then ignored and in fact, even though the team was advised by an admin to do something, it didn't have any affect on the results. The enemy team could still ask for a default win. This raises the main concern of inconsistency and whether or not ETF2L is a credible league.

I believe that the correct way to handle this as admins is to not give a default win. The admins should have forced team Lithuanian Rhapsody and team Sustromming to replay their granary week 7 official asap rather than give a default win. WITH Swi on medic. This ensures that the better team on the day will win the map. It remains consistent with all ideals stated by ETF2L admins, as well as being much more reasonable towards both teams.

Since I have few sources for this information, if any of the following 12 people wish to press their side (the 12 players in the official), their information is likely much more fair and reasonable than mine since they are first person viewers of this debacle. Team Surstromming: Daemon, _gar, Racso, Swi, z0diack, hamaham. Team Lithuanian Rhapsody: Foz, Five baz, Shpeeisme, NeuTronas, Detoed., tuja
2
#2
-7 Frags +

oh my how to respond

oh my how to respond
3
#3
21 Frags +
Doughy6.The golden cap, team Sustromming played with correct classes and won, so this raises the validity of the main concern of team Lithuanian Rhapsody, which is whether or not having a prem player in the game actually affected the outcome. In other words, the entire map of granary was not played with incorrect classes, so whether or not this should be a complete 3-0 point loss is very questionable.

I mean Swi gave everyone on the other team the McDickin' on scout
Although the rematch is a pretty good idea to fix this clusterfuck imo

[quote=Doughy]
6.The golden cap, team Sustromming played with correct classes and won, so this raises the validity of the main concern of team Lithuanian Rhapsody, which is whether or not having a prem player in the game actually affected the outcome. In other words, the entire map of granary was not played with incorrect classes, so whether or not this should be a complete 3-0 point loss is very questionable.
[/quote]

I mean Swi gave everyone on the other team the McDickin' on scout
Although the rematch is a pretty good idea to fix this clusterfuck imo
4
#4
0 Frags +

Pm me if u want to peer review your post

Pm me if u want to peer review your post
5
#5
22 Frags +

you're allowed to have a sub that is allowed to play one class but not another?

you're allowed to have a sub that is allowed to play one class but not another?
6
#6
1 Frags +

Does the 2 point limit rule cited in the comments of that match page mean that you can't have >2 points or ≥2 points? Assuming its the former?

Does the 2 point limit rule cited in the comments of that match page mean that you can't have >2 points or ≥2 points? Assuming its the former?
7
#7
-1 Frags +
GazDoughy6.The golden cap, team Sustromming played with correct classes and won, so this raises the validity of the main concern of team Lithuanian Rhapsody, which is whether or not having a prem player in the game actually affected the outcome. In other words, the entire map of granary was not played with incorrect classes, so whether or not this should be a complete 3-0 point loss is very questionable.
I mean Swi gave everyone on the other team the McDickin' on scout
Although the rematch is a pretty good idea to fix this clusterfuck imo

Agreed Gaz, he did indeed play well (which is expected). However, the main point is that the reason team LR should get a default win is that Swi does the "McDickin'" and then hamaham shits the bed and they get rolled (or even beaten) in a golden cap. But the fact that hamaham did well on scout, results in problems on whether or not team LR would have won even if hamaham plays scout and swi on medic for the main part of the map. Since this is questionable, a rematch is optimal rather than a default win for a team that may not deserve it.

ZestyDoes the 2 point limit rule cited in the comments of that match page mean that you can't have >2 points or ≥2 points? Assuming its the former?

This is resulted in a problem (it is 2 point limit so >2 not ≥2) as one team believed and and another team believed the other.

[quote=Gaz][quote=Doughy]
6.The golden cap, team Sustromming played with correct classes and won, so this raises the validity of the main concern of team Lithuanian Rhapsody, which is whether or not having a prem player in the game actually affected the outcome. In other words, the entire map of granary was not played with incorrect classes, so whether or not this should be a complete 3-0 point loss is very questionable.
[/quote]

I mean Swi gave everyone on the other team the McDickin' on scout
Although the rematch is a pretty good idea to fix this clusterfuck imo[/quote]

Agreed Gaz, he did indeed play well (which is expected). However, the main point is that the reason team LR should get a default win is that Swi does the "McDickin'" and then hamaham shits the bed and they get rolled (or even beaten) in a golden cap. But the fact that hamaham did well on scout, results in problems on whether or not team LR would have won even if hamaham plays scout and swi on medic for the main part of the map. Since this is questionable, a rematch is optimal rather than a default win for a team that may not deserve it.

[quote=Zesty]Does the 2 point limit rule cited in the comments of that match page mean that you can't have >2 points or ≥2 points? Assuming its the former?[/quote]

This is resulted in a problem (it is 2 point limit so >2 not ≥2) as one team believed and and another team believed the other.
8
#8
1 Frags +
GazI mean Swi gave everyone on the other team the McDickin' on scout
Although the rematch is a pretty good idea to fix this clusterfuck imo

It's very possible to do a rematch if it's done before Wednesday 21:15 as that is when Team Lithuanian Rhapsody have their first round of playoffs against Team goonsquad.
Alternatively it can be done any time during the week if that official gets rescheduled to a later date, might be an issue for Team Lithuanian Rhapsody considering the times they offered us that we could choose from due to their team having highlander players who are equally as dedicated to highlander as they are to 6s.

ZestyDoes the 2 point limit rule cited in the comments of that match page mean that you can't have >2 points or ≥2 points? Assuming its the former?

The rule is worded strangely in my opinion, I'm no linguistic professor but limit being 2 sounds like you have up to 2 points to me at least, but in this case means you in fact only have 1 point.

[quote=Gaz]
I mean Swi gave everyone on the other team the McDickin' on scout
Although the rematch is a pretty good idea to fix this clusterfuck imo[/quote]
It's very possible to do a rematch if it's done before Wednesday 21:15 as that is when Team Lithuanian Rhapsody have their first round of playoffs against Team goonsquad.
Alternatively it can be done any time during the week if that official gets rescheduled to a later date, might be an issue for Team Lithuanian Rhapsody considering the times they offered us that we could choose from due to their team having highlander players who are equally as dedicated to highlander as they are to 6s.
[quote=Zesty]Does the 2 point limit rule cited in the comments of that match page mean that you can't have >2 points or ≥2 points? Assuming its the former?[/quote]
The rule is worded strangely in my opinion, I'm no linguistic professor but limit being 2 sounds like you have up to 2 points to me at least, but in this case means you in fact only have 1 point.
9
#9
13 Frags +

I don't see what's the point on debating about this. The swedes definitely broke the rule and used Swi on mainclass while he was only allowed to play medic, no matter what the result was. You can't take GC as an example anyway due to its short duration. Judging by the logs Swi pretty much carried and honestly I don't think whoever their main scout is would have performed as good as a prem player.

You argue that is questionable that they lost the GC and that they lost the other map but at the same time ignore the fact that they tied despite the enemy team having Swi on scout. Judging by your same logic, then it is questionable to think that the swedes would have managed to tie on granary had they stayed on their classes.

fair result imo

Air_you're allowed to have a sub that is allowed to play one class but not another?

this is done to prevent premiership players subbing in lower divs with their main classes, as it is not fair competition if for example you play open and you just started and then have to play vs kaidus on demo for example.

I don't see what's the point on debating about this. The swedes definitely broke the rule and used Swi on mainclass while he was only allowed to play medic, no matter what the result was. You can't take GC as an example anyway due to its short duration. Judging by the logs Swi pretty much carried and honestly I don't think whoever their main scout is would have performed as good as a prem player.

You argue that is questionable that they lost the GC and that they lost the other map but at the same time ignore the fact that they tied despite the enemy team having Swi on scout. Judging by your same logic, then it is questionable to think that the swedes would have managed to tie on granary had they stayed on their classes.

fair result imo

[quote=Air_]you're allowed to have a sub that is allowed to play one class but not another?[/quote]

this is done to prevent premiership players subbing in lower divs with their main classes, as it is not fair competition if for example you play open and you just started and then have to play vs kaidus on demo for example.
10
#10
11 Frags +
DoughyAgreed Gaz, he did indeed play well (which is expected). However, the main point is that the reason team LR should get a default win is that Swi does the "McDickin'" and then hamaham shits the bed

You are comparing Swi's 30 minute performance to hamahams 4 minute golden cap, which ends after the first round. That is like saying person X is just as good as Usain Bolt because they can run at the same speed, even though Usain Bolt can do it for the full 100m.

I get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.

[quote=Doughy]
Agreed Gaz, he did indeed play well (which is expected). However, the main point is that the reason team LR should get a default win is that Swi does the "McDickin'" and then hamaham shits the bed [/quote]

You are comparing Swi's 30 minute performance to hamahams 4 minute golden cap, which ends after the first round. That is like saying person X is just as good as Usain Bolt because they can run at the same speed, even though Usain Bolt can do it for the full 100m.

I get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.
11
#11
0 Frags +
GazDoughyAgreed Gaz, he did indeed play well (which is expected). However, the main point is that the reason team LR should get a default win is that Swi does the "McDickin'" and then hamaham shits the bed
You are comparing Swi's 30 minute performance to hamahams 4 minute golden cap, which ends after the first round. That is like saying person X is just as good as Usain Bolt because they can run at the same speed, even though Usain Bolt can do it for the full 100m.

I get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.

Interesting analogy, but not quite. It's more like I'm saying: You can't say that person X can't run as fast as Bolt if he reached the same speed for 10m rather than the full 100m. Ofc it may seem unlikely, but this analogy does take it to the extreme. It isn't nearly as clear cut as that.

Agreed with second point.

[quote=Gaz][quote=Doughy]
Agreed Gaz, he did indeed play well (which is expected). However, the main point is that the reason team LR should get a default win is that Swi does the "McDickin'" and then hamaham shits the bed [/quote]

You are comparing Swi's 30 minute performance to hamahams 4 minute golden cap, which ends after the first round. That is like saying person X is just as good as Usain Bolt because they can run at the same speed, even though Usain Bolt can do it for the full 100m.

I get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.[/quote]

Interesting analogy, but not quite. It's more like I'm saying: You can't say that person X can't run as fast as Bolt if he reached the same speed for 10m rather than the full 100m. Ofc it may seem unlikely, but this analogy does take it to the extreme. It isn't nearly as clear cut as that.

Agreed with second point.
12
#12
12 Frags +

The merc rules needs a change when it comes to 6s as there is nothing preventing people from denying all mercs, not even their social status as everyone can blame someone else who was on the team at the time and people won't bother more than that. ETF2L isn't big enough to warrant every team having substitute players and being forced to play 5v6 is super lame.

As for the official I find it a bit annoying that they were given an option to restart the granary map when we tied and had to play golden cap, I was told to play scout at this point which I did and we won. Only then do they take a default win. We were never given the option to replay the map.

The merc rules needs a change when it comes to 6s as there is nothing preventing people from denying all mercs, not even their social status as everyone can blame someone else who was on the team at the time and people won't bother more than that. ETF2L isn't big enough to warrant every team having substitute players and being forced to play 5v6 is super lame.

As for the official I find it a bit annoying that they were given an option to restart the granary map when we tied and had to play golden cap, I was told to play scout at this point which I did and we won. Only then do they take a default win. We were never given the option to replay the map.
13
#13
-2 Frags +

edit: should've looked deeper into the logs

edit: should've looked deeper into the logs
14
#14
4 Frags +
hamahamThe merc rules needs a change when it comes to 6s as there is nothing preventing people from denying all mercs. ETF2L isn't big enough to warrant every team having substitute players

This is a good point, and most of the time its better to get a merc over your rostered sub anyway, because the merc is actually playing the season whereas your sub is probably inactive (otherwise theyd be on a team themself)

[quote=hamaham]The merc rules needs a change when it comes to 6s as there is nothing preventing people from denying all mercs. ETF2L isn't big enough to warrant every team having substitute players[/quote]
This is a good point, and most of the time its better to get a merc over your rostered sub anyway, because the merc is actually playing the season whereas your sub is probably inactive (otherwise theyd be on a team themself)
15
#15
-4 Frags +

i feel like ever having a merc is a really shitty situation for both teams, and esea's rules not letting anyone unrostered play is the best course of action.

i feel like ever having a merc is a really shitty situation for both teams, and esea's rules not letting anyone unrostered play is the best course of action.
16
#16
19 Frags +
GazI get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.

What are you talking about? You can't see timestamps in the chat log, but they clearly warned them:

Show Content
RED shpee (gone wild): guys we believe you can't play with swi on scout since he played prem
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: unlucky, he can
BLU calle -bt: shame that he is on our roster then
RED foz merc: since he joined late
BLU calle -bt: he didnt
RED NeuTronas: A team’s active line-up may only consist of a limited amount of higher skilled players that joined after the Provisional Tier
BLU calle -bt: unforch
RED foz merc: he joined 3 weeks ago
RED Fivebaz: coma savaaaa
BLU calle -bt: :(
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: ya, he's 2 points
RED foz merc: ye
RED NeuTronas: Each team has a 2 point limit (3 for Highlander). If you reach the limit you will be punished.
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: 2 out of the 2 points we can have :D
RED shpee (gone wild): we're just warning you of this :)
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: we can play with him :)
RED NeuTronas: you reached the limit
RED shpee (gone wild): of our feelings
RED foz merc: reach the limit and get punished
BLU calle -bt: unlucky :))

It's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'

[quote=Gaz]
I get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.[/quote]

What are you talking about? You can't see timestamps in the chat log, but they clearly warned them:
[spoiler]RED shpee (gone wild): guys we believe you can't play with swi on scout since he played prem
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: unlucky, he can
BLU calle -bt: shame that he is on our roster then
RED foz merc: since he joined late
BLU calle -bt: he didnt
RED NeuTronas: A team’s active line-up may only consist of a limited amount of higher skilled players that joined after the Provisional Tier
BLU calle -bt: unforch
RED foz merc: he joined 3 weeks ago
RED Fivebaz: coma savaaaa
BLU calle -bt: :(
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: ya, he's 2 points
RED foz merc: ye
RED NeuTronas: Each team has a 2 point limit (3 for Highlander). If you reach the limit you will be punished.
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: 2 out of the 2 points we can have :D
RED shpee (gone wild): we're just warning you of this :)
BLU hamaham - formerly scout: we can play with him :)
RED NeuTronas: you reached the limit
RED shpee (gone wild): of our feelings
RED foz merc: reach the limit and get punished
BLU calle -bt: unlucky :))[/spoiler]

It's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'
17
#17
-1 Frags +
TimTumGazI get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.
It's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'

If admins hadn't decided on the spot to judge the game differently we'd have gotten a minor warning and that's it. No point penalty. Yeah it might be a dick move to willingly get a minor warning to secure playoffs but so is denying all mercs.

They contacted admins AFTER the map as well, they got permission to replay map or play golden cap and later on after both maps had been played got permission to take default apparently? Why didn't they just force us to replay the map? All admins told me was to play scout or get defaulted

[quote=TimTum][quote=Gaz]
I get it though.The rulebook needs some (meaningful) adjustments asap. LR knew the other team is breaking the rules by having Swi on scout but chose to wait until after the game and I know exactly what was going on in their mumble: "if we beat them it's fine but if we lose we can just get the default". If people accept to play the entire match after the first mid this rule just shouldn't apply anymore. They knew exactly what they were getting into and they did nothing to prevent it even though they could have.[/quote]

It's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'[/quote]
If admins hadn't decided on the spot to judge the game differently we'd have gotten a minor warning and that's it. No point penalty. Yeah it might be a dick move to willingly get a minor warning to secure playoffs but so is denying all mercs.

They contacted admins AFTER the map as well, they got permission to replay map or play golden cap and later on after both maps had been played got permission to take default apparently? Why didn't they just force us to replay the map? All admins told me was to play scout or get defaulted
18
#18
18 Frags +

We needed a demoman to finish our div 2 games so we got yak and me and the admins agreed to put him on scout and me on demo. Not like it would have mattered since we sucked but it's the honourable thing to do.

Admins seem to have always tried their best to make things easy and fair but it's hard dealing with mentally challenged people on a daily basis and now I think it's time.

I volunteer as admin I think etf2l needs someone who is experienced, speaks for the people and knows the league and it's players on all sides and divisions. My offer stands.

We needed a demoman to finish our div 2 games so we got yak and me and the admins agreed to put him on scout and me on demo. Not like it would have mattered since we sucked but it's the honourable thing to do.

Admins seem to have always tried their best to make things easy and fair but it's hard dealing with mentally challenged people on a daily basis and now I think it's time.

I volunteer as admin I think etf2l needs someone who is experienced, speaks for the people and knows the league and it's players on all sides and divisions. My offer stands.
19
#19
-16 Frags +

Have ETF2L admins literally ever been good tho

Have ETF2L admins literally ever been good tho
20
#20
17 Frags +

ETF2L admins r legit bro, the reason posts like this are important is to keep them that way. Accountability is epic.

ETF2L admins r legit bro, the reason posts like this are important is to keep them that way. Accountability is epic.
21
#21
-1 Frags +
TimTumIt's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'

If LR had any doubt that he was able to play they should have double checked it. It seems like Surstromming genuinely thought he could play, so if no team bothers to check or bring it up to the admins. If they were aware beforehand as they seem to be, they should not have readied up and instead should have contacted an admin to confirm that.

[quote=TimTum]
It's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'[/quote]
If LR had any doubt that he was able to play they should have double checked it. It seems like Surstromming genuinely thought he could play, so if no team bothers to check or bring it up to the admins. If they were aware beforehand as they seem to be, they should not have readied up and instead should have contacted an admin to confirm that.
22
#22
7 Frags +
daybraekTimTumIt's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'If LR had any doubt that he was able to play they should have double checked it. It seems like Surstromming genuinely thought he could play, so if no team bothers to check or bring it up to the admins. If they were aware beforehand as they seem to be, they should not have readied up and instead should have contacted an admin to confirm that.

Meh i dont think you should really blame the opponents for the other team breaking a rule.
Each team is responsible for knowing the rules and their roster themselves, and LR even told them that what they do is against the rules. At least at this point imo LR did everything they should have, and Surstromming are the ones who should have doublechecked if they made a mistake in understanding the rules.
To me this clearly shows they were not hunting the default win, as they explicitely told the other team that what they were doing is wrong (given that it was before the game started or in a reasonable timeframe during the beginning of it), but it is not their responsibility to make sure that another team wont get punished for breaking the rules and put effort into getting an admin.
If you dont bother getting an admin and in the end it turns out you were on the wrong side then its your own fault.

[quote=daybraek][quote=TimTum]
It's not the responsibility of LR to check if everyone on Surstromming's roster is allowed to play. They even warned them as far as I can see while they could've said nothing at all. Surstromming should've checked with the admins, but instead they responded with 'unlucky, he can', 'we can play with him :)' and 'unlucky :))'[/quote]
If LR had any doubt that he was able to play they should have double checked it. It seems like Surstromming genuinely thought he could play, so if no team bothers to check or bring it up to the admins. If they were aware beforehand as they seem to be, they should not have readied up and instead should have contacted an admin to confirm that.[/quote]
Meh i dont think you should really blame the opponents for the other team breaking a rule.
Each team is responsible for knowing the rules and their roster themselves, and LR even told them that what they do is against the rules. At least at this point imo LR did everything they should have, and Surstromming are the ones who should have doublechecked if [b]they[/b] made a mistake in understanding the rules.
To me this clearly shows they were not hunting the default win, as they explicitely told the other team that what they were doing is wrong (given that it was before the game started or in a reasonable timeframe during the beginning of it), but it is not their responsibility to make sure that another team wont get punished for breaking the rules and put effort into getting an admin.
If you dont bother getting an admin and in the end it turns out you were on the wrong side then its your own fault.
23
#23
0 Frags +

shocking

shocking
24
#24
21 Frags +

Imagine denying every Merc of your opponent

Imagine denying every Merc of your opponent
25
#25
14 Frags +

Can't believe permzilla would do this...

Can't believe permzilla would do this...
26
#26
-5 Frags +
FiredaybraekIf LR had any doubt that he was able to play they should have double checked it. It seems like Surstromming genuinely thought he could play, so if no team bothers to check or bring it up to the admins. If they were aware beforehand as they seem to be, they should not have readied up and instead should have contacted an admin to confirm that.Meh i dont think you should really blame the opponents for the other team breaking a rule.
Each team is responsible for knowing the rules and their roster themselves, and LR even told them that what they do is against the rules. At least at this point imo LR did everything they should have, and Surstromming are the ones who should have doublechecked if they made a mistake in understanding the rules.
To me this clearly shows they were not hunting the default win, as they explicitely told the other team that what they were doing is wrong (given that it was before the game started or in a reasonable timeframe during the beginning of it), but it is not their responsibility to make sure that another team wont get punished for breaking the rules and put effort into getting an admin.
If you dont bother getting an admin and in the end it turns out you were on the wrong side then its your own fault.

The situation isn't "which team was more in the wrong" but rather that admins are unreliable and inconsistent.

LR are aware that Swi is going to play scout, never at any point during the game do they talk to admins or want to pause, they manage to even the scores and force a golden cap.
They contact admins and get told that "Restarting the map with Swi on med would be more fair, unless you don't feel the need to."
I contact admin and ask about the rule and ask if we will get a minor warning if we just continue playing with Swi on scout, I get the response "No, it'll be a default, I can allow Swi to play medic for the rest of the game but that's it"
LR switch to golden cap config and I switch to scout and Swi goes medic, we both ready up. This means that they did not feel a need to restart the game.
We switch to snakewater and we manage to win that map as well, giving us 5 points and them 1, we had 21 and they had 24 before this match, making it so we get into playoffs instead of them.
They complain to admins and manage to get granary defaulted, making them get into playoffs.

Had we known that we would get defaulted regardless of me going scout in golden cap we would have obviously picked to restart, but the decision was theirs to make and they did not feel the need to restart.

The excuse that it was a playoffs deciding match should not matter for any game in the top tables as all the games are fixed. They all matter equally towards getting into playoffs.

[quote=Fire][quote=daybraek]
If LR had any doubt that he was able to play they should have double checked it. It seems like Surstromming genuinely thought he could play, so if no team bothers to check or bring it up to the admins. If they were aware beforehand as they seem to be, they should not have readied up and instead should have contacted an admin to confirm that.[/quote]
Meh i dont think you should really blame the opponents for the other team breaking a rule.
Each team is responsible for knowing the rules and their roster themselves, and LR even told them that what they do is against the rules. At least at this point imo LR did everything they should have, and Surstromming are the ones who should have doublechecked if [b]they[/b] made a mistake in understanding the rules.
To me this clearly shows they were not hunting the default win, as they explicitely told the other team that what they were doing is wrong (given that it was before the game started or in a reasonable timeframe during the beginning of it), but it is not their responsibility to make sure that another team wont get punished for breaking the rules and put effort into getting an admin.
If you dont bother getting an admin and in the end it turns out you were on the wrong side then its your own fault.[/quote]
The situation isn't "which team was more in the wrong" but rather that admins are unreliable and inconsistent.

LR are aware that Swi is going to play scout, never at any point during the game do they talk to admins or want to pause, they manage to even the scores and force a golden cap.
They contact admins and get told that "Restarting the map with Swi on med would be more fair, [b]unless you don't feel the need to.[/b]"
I contact admin and ask about the rule and ask if we will get a minor warning if we just continue playing with Swi on scout, I get the response "No, it'll be a default, I can allow Swi to play medic for the rest of the game but that's it"
LR switch to golden cap config and I switch to scout and Swi goes medic, we both ready up. [b]This means that they did not feel a need to restart the game.[/b]
We switch to snakewater and we manage to win that map as well, giving us 5 points and them 1, we had 21 and they had 24 before this match, making it so we get into playoffs instead of them.
They complain to admins and manage to get granary defaulted, making them get into playoffs.

Had we known that we would get defaulted regardless of me going scout in golden cap we would have obviously picked to restart, but [b]the decision was theirs to make and they did not feel the need to restart.[/b]

The excuse that it was a playoffs deciding match should not matter for any game in the top tables as all the games are fixed. They all matter equally towards getting into playoffs.
27
#27
8 Frags +
hamahamThe situation isn't "which team was more in the wrong" but rather that admins are unreliable and inconsistent.

LR are aware that Swi is going to play scout, never at any point during the game do they talk to admins or want to pause, they manage to even the scores and force a golden cap.

wasnt it you who proposed to play first and then see?

Show Content
Red NeuTronas it clearly states reached not exceeded
Red shpee (gone wild) one of us says same, other ppl say different
Red shpee (gone wild) we don't know
Red shpee (gone wild) guess we'll see
Blu hamaham - formerly scout ya , we play then u can try to default hunt?

Like i said, i dont see any argument for you in the fact that they didnt get an admin. They were right and you were wrong and they even told you, it was not their responsibility to get an admin.

e: to make this clear, im not saying for whatever reason one team had to get an admin and the other team doesnt.
what im saying is that if you dont get an admin to confirm what you think is correct, and in the end you were wrong, then you get punished.

Other than that, i agree that the admin saying "Restarting the map with Swi on med would be more fair, unless you don't feel the need to." does indeed sound like if they choose not to restart the map, they implicitly agree that the way it was played was fine.
I also agree that "No, it'll be a default, I can allow Swi to play medic for the rest of the game but that's it" does sound like if you switch Swi to medic now, it will be fine and no punishments will happen.
So yes, the communication of the admin(s?) was not great in this case, however i do not think that it changes the outcome.

The main question to me is, since you already played until the tie with Swi on scout even tho it was breaking the rules, would that alone not already justify a default loss for that map? Would you even have the choice to say "oh they noticed it was not allowed, guess we just replay and see what happens"?
Because if that is not the case, then you were indeed misinformed, but it had no influence on the outcome of the match. You already played most of the map and the way you played it was not following the rules, thus you get the default loss for that map unless the opponents want to replay (which they apparently didnt).

e2: i just now understood the argument of the match being "playoff deciding" and i totally agree that this should not affect the judgement at all. If you only got a default loss because it was a playoff deciding match, but otherwise the decision / punishment would have been different, that was a wrong choice imo.

[quote=hamaham]
The situation isn't "which team was more in the wrong" but rather that admins are unreliable and inconsistent.

LR are aware that Swi is going to play scout, [b]never at any point during the game do they talk to admins or want to pause[/b], they manage to even the scores and force a golden cap.
[/quote]

wasnt it you who proposed to play first and then see?

[spoiler]
Red NeuTronas it clearly states reached not exceeded
Red shpee (gone wild) one of us says same, other ppl say different
Red shpee (gone wild) we don't know
Red shpee (gone wild) guess we'll see
Blu hamaham - formerly scout ya , we play then u can try to default hunt?
[/spoiler]

Like i said, i dont see any argument for you in the fact that they didnt get an admin. They were right and you were wrong [b]and they even told you[/b], it was not their responsibility to get an admin.

[i]e: to make this clear, im not saying for whatever reason one team had to get an admin and the other team doesnt.
what im saying is that if you dont get an admin to confirm what you think is correct, and in the end you were wrong, then you get punished.[/i]

Other than that, i agree that the admin saying "Restarting the map with Swi on med would be more fair, unless you don't feel the need to." does indeed sound like if they choose not to restart the map, they implicitly agree that the way it was played was fine.
I also agree that "No, it'll be a default, I can allow Swi to play medic for the rest of the game but that's it" does sound like if you switch Swi to medic now, it will be fine and no punishments will happen.
So yes, the communication of the admin(s?) was not great in this case, however i do not think that it changes the outcome.

The main question to me is, since you already played until the tie with Swi on scout even tho it was breaking the rules, would that alone not already justify a default loss for that map? Would you even have the choice to say "oh they noticed it was not allowed, guess we just replay and see what happens"?
Because if that is not the case, then you were indeed misinformed, but it had no influence on the outcome of the match. You already played most of the map and the way you played it was not following the rules, thus you get the default loss for that map unless the opponents want to replay (which they apparently didnt).

[i]e2: i just now understood the argument of the match being "playoff deciding" and i totally agree that this should not affect the judgement at all. If you only got a default loss because it was a playoff deciding match, but otherwise the decision / punishment would have been different, that was a wrong choice imo.[/i]
28
#28
41 Frags +

https://i.imgur.com/9qhU4C6.png

[img]https://i.imgur.com/9qhU4C6.png[/img]
29
#29
1 Frags +
FireThe main question to me is, since you already played until the tie with Swi on scout even tho it was breaking the rules, would that alone not already justify a default loss for that map?

No, experienced players only give minor warnings. We had no warnings prior and wouldn't be impacted by one, there was no indication that it would be defaulted since I have never seen it happen before, and I've been around since 2014.

FireWould you even have the choice to say "oh they noticed it was not allowed, guess we just replay and see what happens"?
Because if that is not the case, then you were indeed misinformed, but it had no influence on the outcome of the match. You already played most of the map and the way you played it was not following the rules, thus you get the default loss for that map unless the opponents want to replay (which they apparently didnt).

This legit doesn't make sense since teams that have won with higher experienced players in other matches have ONLY gotten minor warnings, never did the losing team get default wins or options to replay.

[quote=Fire]
The main question to me is, since you already played until the tie with Swi on scout even tho it was breaking the rules, would that alone not already justify a default loss for that map? [/quote]
No, experienced players only give minor warnings. We had no warnings prior and wouldn't be impacted by one, there was no indication that it would be defaulted since I have never seen it happen before, and I've been around since 2014.
[quote=Fire]
Would you even have the choice to say "oh they noticed it was not allowed, guess we just replay and see what happens"?
Because if that is not the case, then you were indeed misinformed, but it had no influence on the outcome of the match. You already played most of the map and the way you played it was not following the rules, thus you get the default loss for that map unless the opponents want to replay (which they apparently didnt).[/quote]
This legit doesn't make sense since teams that have won with higher experienced players in other matches have ONLY gotten minor warnings, never did the losing team get default wins or options to replay.
30
#30
3 Frags +
hamahamFireThe main question to me is, since you already played until the tie with Swi on scout even tho it was breaking the rules, would that alone not already justify a default loss for that map? No, experienced players only give minor warnings. We had no warnings prior and wouldn't be impacted by one, there was no indication that it would be defaulted since I have never seen it happen before, and I've been around since 2014.FireWould you even have the choice to say "oh they noticed it was not allowed, guess we just replay and see what happens"?
Because if that is not the case, then you were indeed misinformed, but it had no influence on the outcome of the match. You already played most of the map and the way you played it was not following the rules, thus you get the default loss for that map unless the opponents want to replay (which they apparently didnt).
This legit doesn't make sense since teams that have won with higher experienced players in other matches have ONLY gotten minor warnings, never did the losing team get default wins or options to replay.

If this is the case and the usual punishment for playing with a more experienced player is a minor warning then i agree with you. I was not able to tell since the rules only say "If you reach the limit you will be punished.", but not what kind of punishment it is going to be.

[quote=hamaham][quote=Fire]
The main question to me is, since you already played until the tie with Swi on scout even tho it was breaking the rules, would that alone not already justify a default loss for that map? [/quote]
No, experienced players only give minor warnings. We had no warnings prior and wouldn't be impacted by one, there was no indication that it would be defaulted since I have never seen it happen before, and I've been around since 2014.
[quote=Fire]
Would you even have the choice to say "oh they noticed it was not allowed, guess we just replay and see what happens"?
Because if that is not the case, then you were indeed misinformed, but it had no influence on the outcome of the match. You already played most of the map and the way you played it was not following the rules, thus you get the default loss for that map unless the opponents want to replay (which they apparently didnt).[/quote]
This legit doesn't make sense since teams that have won with higher experienced players in other matches have ONLY gotten minor warnings, never did the losing team get default wins or options to replay.[/quote]
If this is the case and the usual punishment for playing with a more experienced player is a minor warning then i agree with you. I was not able to tell since the rules only say "If you reach the limit you will be punished.", but not what kind of punishment it is going to be.
1 2
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.