1. Are you a supporter that wants to change your forum name? Just ask a member of site staff!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Beto's been working hard updating the homepage, and has also made a new app for league results! Please check the announcement for more information.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. You can click here to download a zip file conaining WCL and PL standings/schedules. We will update the file once we've managed to gather (if possible) all the data about IL and MKL.
    Dismiss Notice

Division 2: Discussion Thread & Skype Contacts

Discussion in 'Division 2: Blue Shell' started by Viraith, Mar 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    @TK64 @Kayla I have a question for you guys since you're both against the penalty because it "didn't affect the outcome of the match." Mii name rules have been here since 2008. What do they affect? Nothing, yet they have been here since the beginning and no one really complained about them existing. The rules aren't all about affecting the match. Sure, you could have given the FC more than 2 hours late and the outcome would be the same, but there's rules against that which would come in to play like it did in this situation.
     
  2. Kiltron

    Kiltron The Great

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,536
    Location:
    ME
    Team:
    Forever Onward
    Council Staff: Eirik, Slide, Alex, Dugo, Solar, Hawk, Joe, Matt

    Which one of these guys is in Avail again? If anything Solar is in RE (not that i think Mr. Air Plane is biased). Viraith is the only person in Avail who has anything to do with CSL currently and he's a div admin. And obviously they don't have much power.
     
    Gavin likes this.
  3. Apraxia

    Apraxia ,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2013
    Messages:
    798
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    us tx sa
    The difference between both of these is that one is well known by the community, and one just popped out of nowhere.

    The mii name rule isn't hard to follow either...
     
  4. Rick

    Rick

    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    The Bahamas
    Joseph is in Av
     
  5. Kiltron

    Kiltron The Great

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,536
    Location:
    ME
    Team:
    Forever Onward
    my bad, the evil of Joe has corrupted CSL. behead him
     
  6. Apraxia

    Apraxia ,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2013
    Messages:
    798
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    us tx sa
    Joe is in Avail lol. But just ingore that ;)
     
  7. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    The rule was added on the March 15th revision update with all new additions highlighted in pink and bolded at the time. You were notified a week before the season began about all the new rules and didn't speak up about it then, but you expect to get away with breaking the rules after the season started. And you said it's easy to follow the Mii name rules, but it's also easy to follow this rule when you have 2 hours & 45 minutes to do so (not saying this in a mean way even if it sounds like it). And I'm not trying to start drama by saying that, but it literally looks like that's what you just said.
     
  8. TK64

    TK64

    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,621
    Gender:
    Male
    Team:
    ωZ
    stop saying that you're not trying to start drama when you're going to such extreme lengths to win a war that you didn't even play in (and you couldn't have even if you wanted to), if you didn't want drama you wouldn't have said anything in the first place because the war was fine and went smoothly and there wouldn't have been an issue.

    that said, cheating to win is right up your alley so the fact that you did this really doesn't surprise me. you even do shit like this in casual wars.
     
  9. Apraxia

    Apraxia ,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2013
    Messages:
    798
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    us tx sa

    lol 3/4 of the players haven't even read the rules but that's besides the point, it's up to the council being reasonable or not. I have nothing else to say unless something reasonable gets brought up.
     
  10. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    I already answered this many times, but apparently you didn't read it those many times so I'll answer it again. I volunteered to make the post about it. It was a rule-break by the CSL ruleset. Why should I stay quiet about it? Why should everyone stay quiet if the rules aren't being followed?

    The thing is that this isn't cheating to win. It's only following the CSL ruleset. You not agreeing with those rules isn't on me, or Relapse, but it's on the CSL staff. Stop taking it out on them like they're the targets and take it out on the people with power who create the rules (if anything).

    You're blaming Relapse for others not reading the updates in the rules. That's your first problem. >_>
     
  11. Killua

    Killua 私はアダージョが大好き WL Staff

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    • WL Staff
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    789
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I don't think rc is arguing rules shouldn't be followed. And yes, I understand that you have to draw a line somewhere with this rule.

    However, the host being such a short time late clearly didn't affect the outcome. If the host is 10 minutes late, that can delay the war and make people have to leave. THAT is the purpose of the rule. As far as I know, the match wasn't delayed and no one had to go. So why should the penalty be applied?

    Tag penalties are there for the purpose of avoiding confusion in wars. If someone could make their name "Ravage" and have it count as using the Avail tag it could become confusing to play against in wars for some people.

    You should just take common sense into whether this rule should be applied or not. Viraith, the division admin, seems to agree with this side of the ruling. Why does the council get to overturn every division admin decision, whether they're right or wrong? What's the point of having them?

    Rules should always be followed, and I guarantee that everyone knows of this rule now. You can give rc a warning for this and a penalty if further hosting rules are broken by them. There is no need to change the outcome of a match off of 47 second late host fc.

    Also was it proven that Proto's computer clock wasn't accidentally set a minute late? If not there's no way to prove the rule was actually broken. Clocks can be off by a minute very easily.
     
    King likes this.
  12. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    You agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, but the next part of what you said makes no sense. You literally just said it's fine to break the rule as long as it's up to a certain point. What is that certain point? Why is the rule even there if it's allowed to be broken up to that certain point (without any specifications)?

    If this rule is pointless, then so are the Mii name rules. With your example, you're implying that you don't know who's on your team and who isn't on your team. If you don't know who's on your team without the tag telling you, then you shouldn't be playing in a competitive league.

    I'm not fully sure on this next one, but I believe the decision was overturned by the council because there's something that says all rules and penalties are to be enforced, and Viraith didn't follow that. That was a flaw on his part.

    Why should Reflection only receive a warning for this since it was the first time it happened? Is it because they "didn't know" the rule existed? That would be their fault for not reviewing the rules, wouldn't it? It could have happened in any week to any clan and it would still deserve a penalty (while following the current ruleset).

    I already posted many times that Kayla could and would have brought up the fact that Proto's time was fake within the past 12 days if it actually was. Why would Reflection go through all of this arguing if it wasn't even really :45:00? Kayla would have stated that right away instead of trying to blame this ruling on Relapse when they're only the ones following the rules that are set in place.
     
  13. Killua

    Killua 私はアダージョが大好き WL Staff

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    • WL Staff
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    789
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I'm not saying Proto's time was faked, I'm saying the log could be incorrect from his computer time being off by a minute since local Skype logs are based off your computer's time.

    I think that a rule like this isn't supposed to be enforced to no tolerance. It's there to prevent clans from stalling for a player to come online / to prevent someone from the other clan being forced to leave mid war because it took too long. That is why 47 seconds is obviously not going to change anything, and that's most likely what Viraith thought as well.

    Obviously everyone ignored my question of if you really think RE deserves a win for being 47 seconds late, because the obvious answer is no. I also don't know why no member of rc was able to argue for their side as well, the council voted without notifying them.

    If every rule is going to be followed to the letter then I'm pretty sure there's a lot more of these penalties you can assess to other clans, including division 1 teams. Seriously, there's not even a need for a council if all they're going to do is look at the rules and say "yeah this was 47 seconds late, nothing else to say here". Context and thinking is important in this kind of vote. There's no need for a council or a division admin if this is how things are going to be run.
     
  14. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    At the first part, why didn't she bring that up in the past 12 days if that was the case though? That obviously wasn't the case or else Kayla would have brought that up by now.

    There's no reason on why that rule exists. There's no real reason on why most of the rules exist. You think that's why that rule exists, but it might not be why. I guess you can't really have one specific reason for something like that, but it's just how you interpret it. And no, actually, Viraith ended up agreeing that a penalty would be necessary in the end since he realized that all rules and penalties are to be enforced (as per the ruleset says).

    I actually didn't see where you posted that question. But now that you brought it up and I did see it, I'll reply to it. I do believe that Relapse deserves the win since, with the current ruleset, Reflection didn't follow them. Also, I'm not trying to bring this up again, but you asked if Relapse deserved the win: To continue with the previous statement (regarding the broken rule), Luca disconnecting in 1st at the line of rBC would have made it so that Reflection didn't even get the bonus point (without the host penalty even coming into play). So yeah, all in all, I do believe that they deserved their win. That's just my personal opinion, though.

    What I'm getting out of your post is that the rules need major updates/changes. I don't necessarily disagree with that. And not to confuse what I just said, so I'll say this: Since these are the rules currently in effect, I think they should be followed. They may be "broken" or harsh, but that's currently what's there for clans to follow.

    One last thing I'd like to note is that I was actually in the process of suggesting rule edits while I got removed from the staff. I don't know what else you really want me to say about that.
     
  15. Killua

    Killua 私はアダージョが大好き WL Staff

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    • WL Staff
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    789
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Well I'm glad you agree the rules need major updating, because there really needs to be a serious overhaul on rules and explanations within them so things like this can be avoided in the future. I understand your viewpoint on this, and if that dc thing is true it's unfortunate but iS had Sims dc on the last straight of Maple Treeway in 3rd in a WCL war and lost it because of that, it's quite unlucky but nothing can be done.


    Just because Kayla didn't think of it / bring it up doesn't mean it's not true. I'm pretty sure her and the rest of rc was under the impression that this wasn't being discussed because, I don't know, no one told them it was being discussed. The process of 'defense' was completely ignored.

    I stand by the fact that this because host being 47 seconds late didn't change anything + RE not wanting to take a penalty (apart from their banned player) + the division admin's original decision being no penalty, this shouldn't be a -20 for rc at all. That is my opinion, I won't be changing it, and I'm sure you won't be changing yours either.

    On top of this, although I respect your viewpoint as having merit, you shouldn't be allowed to even post on this section of the site or talk in Skype chats about rulings considering you are permanently banned from participation in the league. I don't know why they let a banned player talk to them about anything like this while entirely ignoring one half of the argument and conducting the vote and decision entirely without input from rc.
     
    TK64 likes this.
  16. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    Yep, it really did happen. http://gyazo.com/a51181696c09e531d9a595b6b6f1f80c

    Well, that's not Relapse's fault that the council didn't let Reflection have a say on this. I'm guessing that the council saw the posts and saw Reflection arguing against it and saying how it's a stupid rule implied that it did actually happen. But to be sure, why not just ask Kayla exactly what time it was on her computer? (FYI: I already did ask her earlier today and she never responded with it.)

    That's fine. I didn't expect to change your opinion, but I don't agree with it. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

    I'm not sure if it would change anything if I (and all banned players) wasn't allowed to post in the CSL section though. I could literally just PM one of my clanmates on Skype if I wanted to and have them copy and paste it to the section, so banning me wouldn't really change anything. Also, I don't really think I've done any harm by posting here either. If anything I've only made sure the rules were enforced (like it says they have to be), and made it obvious that the rules need to be fixed or altered as soon as possible.
     
  17. luke

    luke vision of excellence WL Staff

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    • WL Staff
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    3,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Louth, Ireland
    Team:
    Rookie's Dictatorship
    i'd love to see such enthusiasm for the rules if it was the other way around
     
    K2LTen likes this.
  18. Tmy

    Tmy

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,352
    Location:
    TN
    I'd love to see common sense applied somewhere along the line.
     
    Veil., KP♪, Agger and 3 others like this.
  19. Killua

    Killua 私はアダージョが大好き WL Staff

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    • WL Staff
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    789
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I don't think you're doing something wrong, Brian, I just think that someone who was banned from the league should lose the ability to post here. If I was banned and allowed to post here / defend what I thought was right I would also do so.

    Neither of us seem to have any power on the real vote so we can just agree to disagree on this subject. I guess we'll have to see if the council overturns the decision or not.
     
    K2LTen likes this.
  20. Tmy

    Tmy

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,352
    Location:
    TN
    its like if the speed limit was 35, you are supposed to do 35 but you can go like 5 mph over that and not get a ticket
     
    Agger likes this.
  21. Wally

    Wally

    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    I know I'm way late to the party, but mii name rules have been there for a reason that does have an impact on the match. Just look at when cB1 played cB2 or any other instance where teams play each other. The most notable way to notice an enemy is seeing an obvious clan tag. It's much quicker and efficient than analyzing a mii or having an entire name process in your head (especially those that consistently use different mii names). That being said the tag instance has always been something big that causes in game scenarios that can be altered by the placement of the tag and how the tag looks. Aside from that, the inability to use another members mii name is mostly for the facility of the staff and not having to worry about people who use other team members names or have to hunt through the posts (if it has been posted yet) of who was using what name.

    As far as the more major issue on hand, I'm rather indifferent on the matter. Is that rule pretty awful? Sure. But is the reasoning behind it sound? Yes. The idea of having time constraints is to not allow matches to go on for hours and hours, like many normal wars (God bless normal wars). That being said if a penalty is to occur it SHOULD actually happen at the time stated purely to the reason to avoid confusion. If a rule is stated saying "FC's must be given within X amount of time of war start time" it would be silly if nothing happened until post 5 minutes because all that really means is that it would be X+5 minutes which is what the rule should then state. I'm not sure if I'm portraying that well but I can try to explain better if need be. Now it could be a matter that warnings would be given out and if it does happen do something similar to WCL where teams lose hosting privileges for a next week or even have a player suspended for a week due to "breaking a rule." Now obviously the week suspension, if used, should definitely be dealing with rules that aren't normally dealt with banning.

    Ultimately I think it should be reviewed by current council, even if not for an overturn, at least to address the rule and find some alternative or make some sort of ultimatum decision that needs to be addressed.

    Also, just a side note for how skype works with logs. If the time is changed (lets say for the purpose of him trying to incur this penalty). Once he changes the time back, messages would start interweaving. For example, lets say it's 3pm and you have messages at 3:00, 3:02, 3:04 etc every 2 minutes. If he rolls his clock back to 2:59, the messages would be posted above the 3:00, 3:02, 3:04 etc and they would have a new timestamp that would put them in as if those other messages are just waiting for the future time of that to be hit again. If you're really curious, try it and you'll understand more, it isn't that easy to visualize I'm sure.

    Finally, Tommy, that isn't necessarily true. That is up to the judgement of the officer and the area you're in (but mostly the officer). You are able to be pulled over at 1mph over and nothing but the officers opinion / judgement on it will decide if he acts on it. Some officers will let you go 15-20 over depending on the flow of traffic / if it appears to be unsafe, others will pull you over if you're over the limit at all.
     
    K2LTen likes this.
  22. Killua

    Killua 私はアダージョが大好き WL Staff

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    • WL Staff
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    789
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota
    That is EXACTLY the point Tommy and I are trying to make here. Rules are meant to be interpreted and enforced how the council sees fit. 99.99% of officers wouldn't pull someone over for going 1 mph over the limit, it's a great analogy for how you shouldn't enforce a penalty for going 47 seconds over the host fc limit.

    Some officers pull you over at 10 mph over, most pull you over by 30 mph over. It is for the council to decide whether 47 seconds is REALLY something worth penalizing, same with how an officer must decide if 1 mph over a speed limit is REALLY worth penalizing.
     
    Apraxia, KP♪, Wally and 2 others like this.
  23. Agger

    Agger

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,802
    Location:
    Panama
    Team:
    KG
    Everyone knows, and its pretty good actually . Wanting to ensure that wars are played at the scheduled time is great. But penalizing them for 47 seconds? Seriously?. Thats being too strict. If it were 3-5 mins or more i would accept it. As Lacie and Tommy said, is like a police officer penalizes you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. No sense.

    Also, how do you know that "seconds" on Proto's computer time were right?
     
  24. Veil.

    Veil. fading into darkness

    • MKBoards Supporter
    • Founding Member
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Without a doubt I agree that this rule is to install a certain form of order if you will and discipline to ensure the war does go on. I don't deny, all rules are to be followed but through my experience as being part of a league staff I've seen many occasions where we don't exactly follow what is stated in the rule set. The thing is, why don't we follow them strictly? Because things like this ruin the game. I'm more of a person which likes to see "the match being played on the courses", rather than let it decided by penalties, that is why all the time I'd tell my team to ignore re-pick or trolling penalties, because those are external factors(referring to the penalty rather than the incident) that indefinitely changes the outcome most of the time.

    With what I've said, I'd put it into this situation at hand. The host FC was given 47 seconds late, not 47 minutes, not 47 hours but SECONDS. Now, 47 seconds is a short period of time, it flies by in an instant. In many situations it's a given 47 seconds could mean life or death, or winning a million on a game show or not, but we're talking about 47 seconds late in which a "set up" was given. Now, the obvious question is how would this affect a war? It doesn't outright, so why enforce a penalty which makes what had been an epic war, a now completely irrelevant and nonsensical one? The council shouldn't even have a right to overturn a division admin's decision (from my standpoint, they don't anyways).

    This match could be a potential division-deciding match up, so IF we were to go 9-1 and lose to Relapse on points difference...then it will go back to the point of "is it really worthwhile letting a team lose a division title over 47 seconds (and by a penalty that was given beyond the track)?

    The main point is, is it really necessary to award a team a penalty for being 47 seconds late on giving a host FC? More importantly, is it really necessary for a group of people to change the outcome of a match based when nothing went wrong ON THE TRACK? Or, is it even necessary to consider a this "case" that is being brought up by a banned player (A BANNED PLAYER) who had no part of the war and when the rest of Relapse acknowledged they'd lost the war and wanted no other third party decisions involved within scoreline?

    Think about this, because all this will be true if we do end up going 9-1 and lose to Relapse on points difference then that simply would be not us losing the title, but us getting robbed of it.
     
    Tmy and Apraxia like this.
  25. K2LTen

    K2LTen Guest

    Hey dude, not trying to continue this argument since it's over with now. However, since you made a "decent" post, it deserves a reply—and by all means, you're going to get one.

    It's definitely agreed upon, by you saying it as well as Relapse's viewpoint, that all rules are to be enforced. In your next sentence you imply that they shouldn't be followed strictly, but everything should be enforced. That right there doesn't make sense since it's a contradiction. Also, not for nothing, but I'm not sure why you and your clan keeps bringing up that you guys won this war "fairly" if it wasn't for this penalty (you guys received for breaking the rules). Did you forget that Relapse's player disconnected in 1st place very close to the finish line on N64 Bowser's Castle? Remember that there were two players more than a lap behind bagging for the shock, meaning that it would have been impossible for him to get less than 2pts in the race even if he were to make the biggest fail within the last few seconds (which is very unlikely, but of course possible). You should be happy that happened because without that I'm pretty sure that Reflection wouldn't have even gotten the bonus point loss.

    Back to the rule and it being too strict and exceptions should be made. We don't disagree with you saying that the rule is too strict, but that doesn't mean it's fine to break them while they're still in effect as of now and all participants are to follow them. The rule was added over a week before Season 3 began, which a new reply in the Rules thread and all revisions/additions highlighted in pink and bolded (as I previously said). That's no one's fault but your own for failing to review the revised rules—Relapse shouldn't be held responsible for it. If the same thing happened to any other clan, they would and should be penalized just like the rules state. To your next question about whether it affected the in-game match or not: That's not relevant (not every rule has an in-game effect, just like this one very much—there's more to rules than just that). The reason that the penalty was enforced is because it says in the rules that they (and the penalties for breaking them) are to be enforced. Once again, it's not Relapse's fault that these are the rules—they didn't make the rules; they are only following them as a participating clan in the league. If you disagree with the rules, or this one in specific, you could have posted in the Rule Suggestions thread much earlier and stated why it's a bad rule, rather than waiting for something bad to actually happen with it.

    To the final part, when you said a banned player (me; hello) is the one who brought it up—that doesn't really matter either. In the rules, it also says that no gentlemen's agreements are allowed. The situation and rule/penalty would have still been enforced regardless of who pointed out the fact that Reflection broke the rule.

    If you want to further discuss this, feel free to add my Skype (same as my username on here), although I think everything important has already been said. All in all, I think I covered pretty much everything. Thank you for reading.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page