Discussion

[Mr_Sharkie]

Its stupid to take away points from a team due to 1 persons mistake. There is literally no point in a tournament if teams start getting points they did not win. If Freezy was using like god mode or something then I would say yah that was an unfair cheat and they should get the points. But it only shows health on a scoreboard... Its not like it gave an advantage to the entire 1er. True he should be banned as it was against the rules... but don't punish the entire 1er because of that.

[tomascadarn]

I do wonder whether goodest feels that its worth it to risk ruining the league just so the 2lr can place 5th instead of 6th

[Goodest]

Its stupid to take away points from a team due to 1 persons mistake. There is literally no point in a tournament if teams start getting points they did not win. If Freezy was using like god mode or something then I would say yah that was an unfair cheat and they should get the points. But it only shows health on a scoreboard... Its not like it gave an advantage to the entire 1er. True he should be banned as it was against the rules... but don't punish the entire 1er because of that.

That's indeed a bit harsh, but it is the punishment the rules request.

"3) If a player is found to have cheated in any of these ways during a match then that player's regiments will forfeit the match.
4) Using the hp clientside modification is not allowed under any circumstances."

Admins already discussed changing this rule but regardless of any changes, new rules cant be applied to old matches. So for our case the rules clearly states how to punish the use of this mod.

I do wonder whether goodest feels that its worth it to risk ruining the league just so the 2lr can place 5th instead of 6th

I dont see how i risk ruining this league, as it wasnt me cheating. I am just pointing out the rules someone else broke.

I really cant see why you are accusing me of risking to ruin the league.
I am pointing out that we are in the same situation as Nr. 4 but they got awarded the victory and we didnt.
I even tried to solve this without making it public and did it all in the referee steam chat but that didnt seem to help as it got never has been mentioned anywhere.
All I'm doing is pointing out a unjustified decision caused because someone else broke a rule.

I didnt do anything wrong here and yet I am trying to bring more ppl. in for the next matches as it is what lindblom said was the purpose of the tournament.
It's an unlucky timing for the comment that we always bring less than needed because that might have been true in the past and somehow is true for the last match as we only had 12 (not intentionally) but we decided to change that and play with everyone. I couldnt prove that because we havent had our second match yet (what I meant with unlucky timing) but I am definetly not trying to harm the league. I even changed our plans based on feedback I recieved from 1er after our match to improve the league or rather to do my part in making it what lindblom wanted it to be. But once again... all this is already said in my first statement.

Why would I even be a ref if I wantde to ruin this league?

[Mr_Sharkie]

Then the rules should be re-looked at. Its a tournament, the results should be accurate and not changed by 1 person using something that barely affected the match. 1er played incredibly hard both matches and deserve the points they got.

[Lightning.]

Then the rules should be re-looked at. Its a tournament, the results should be accurate and not changed by 1 person using something that barely affected the match. 1er played incredibly hard both matches and deserve the points they got.

DragonKing already confirmed that theyll debate over a rule change. The rule still stands and nobody said anything against it so its just fair that it is punished accordingly.

[SwissGronkh]

Then the rules should be re-looked at. Its a tournament, the results should be accurate and not changed by 1 person using something that barely affected the match. 1er played incredibly hard both matches and deserve the points they got.

Sadly it's like that in a "team sport", the team suffers under the mistakes of few.
And maybe this leads to some people reconsider if they want to use it or not, if the whole team could lose the match if they get cought
i mean the hp mod is explicit prohibited and considered cheating.

As sad it is for the 1er and i don't say they deserve it because i believe they fought well duuring both fights.

[Dokletian]

For the 2Lr case there are just too many variables that are more than questionable and vague so it ends up being one word against the other. In that case I'd call it in dubio pro reo meaning the 1er can keep their points.

me using latin

[close]

[tomascadarn]

For the 2Lr case there are just too many variables that are more than questionable and vague so it ends up being one word against the other. In that case I'd call it in dubio pro reo meaning the 1er can keep their points.

Spoiler

[close]

[Lightning.]

For the 2Lr case there are just too many variables that are more than questionable and vague so it ends up being one word against the other. In that case I'd call it in dubio pro reo meaning the 1er can keep their points.

Spoiler

[close]

Pictures you can hear

[Chuckster]

Spoiler

After deep thought and consideration the 1er will be punished on the account of their players actions, honour compels me to do so as the rules are the rules and as head ref I must obey & up hold them. Although, the 1er won on the field the rules were indeed broken so Nr4 will take the 3 points. I expect all regiments and players to show respect and to behave like adults.

How is their situation different from our?

Feezy played in the Match 2Lr vs. 1er aswell.
The rules and situation are still the same, so why is there a different outcome?

I've heard one argument against a autowin for us
"Because at this point I think it is pretty clear that the 2Lr also broke the rules by attending with the minimum attendance, even though they clearly had more people at hand (as it is proven by mutliple sources even in the regiment).
So it'd be rulebreak going against rulebreak"

Our Situation during the match
It is true that we didnt have a great attendance that day, sure, true.
But at this point the only rule regarding attendance was to bring at least 10 players and we had 12.
I trust that ppl. from 2Lr played on cavgf during our match as many have told me but I didnt know about it during the match. As our TS was down during the match we didnt know if anyone else was there willing to play. I am glad the Nr. 13 allowed us to use their TS.

We started the tournament with a "small" team to play in the CL containing 20 ppl. (again, no rule says anything against this) and only 3 of them signed off. So we expected 17 ppl. to show up to the match... well, we all know how it went and only 12 actually came. As our TS was down we had to look for someone else's teamspeak we could use for the match and asked some other regiments. They allowed us to use their TS for the match but asked us to not use their TS as a backup for our TS. So we didnt publish their IP and instead only send the IP to the people in our CL team. Because of that the ppl. on cavgf didnt know where to find us and prob. forgot about the match or didnt know about it as we only mentioned it once and afterwards only in our CL Team.
I spoke with a few ppl. after out match against 1er and they all said it's not fair in their eyes to not bring everyone we had. Lindblom also made a rule that we had to bring atleast 15 ppl. We respect it and will try to get to 15 men in the future and disbanded our CL Team.
All this is just to show, that there was no rule breaking or vile intention in having a bad attendance that day, and after realizing that it appears like we had the intention to play with as few ppl. as posible we changed our plan.

We are not trying to rig the competition and are acting sportsmanlike.. We have been told our concept is not appropiate and we reconsidered it and eventually changed it.

I am saying this because we were accused of breaking rule § 1.
"since they 'at least' violated § 1, especially when it comes to sportsmanship and respect for the competition and the ruleset as a whole"

We didnt break a rule
Minimum attendance
You could say that we would harm the spirit of the rule when bringing only 10 (which we didnt) but why even make a rule of bringing at least 10 ppl. when you are not allowed to do that eighter?
We even had more than 10 and as stated multiple times now, we tried to bring more.

Sportsmanship
I feel like I already made clear, that we didnt intend to act unsportsmanlike as we didnt intentionally had a low attendance and didnt know about the ppl. on cavgf during that time.
we expected 17 ppl. to come. We didnt ask the ppl, who played on cavgf to join us, because I didnt know about them being there and to this day I still dont know who 2/3 ppl. were who played on cavgf. Besides, having 3 ppl. play on cavgf during a match is not breaking a rule. Not saying we did it on purpose, like I said above, I didnt even know about it, but even if it was on purpose, it would not have been against a rule.
Like I already said, we even got rid of our CL Team to act according to the way Lindblom has intended the tournament. He said after our match that the tournament was meant so everyone could get a chance to play. We respect that.

With all this being said I really dont see how we broke a rule, even Bedo agreed with me after our match that we didnt break a rule (but mentioned it's not nice to play with less than possible).

Spirit of the rules
Also "the spirit of the rules" wasnt harmed in any way in my opinion as the only rule in terms of attendance was to bring at least 10 (the rule with min. 12 or 15 per match was introduced after our match against 1er).
We had more than that, so how is that against the spirit then?


1erHuss rulebreak against us is the same as their rulebreak against Nr. 4. Feezy used the hp mod.

As we didnt break a rule in our match there is no argument anymore speaking against us getting the autowin against 1er
Referring to this ("Because at this point I think it is pretty clear that the 2Lr also broke the rules by attending with the minimum attendance, even though they clearly had more people at hand (as it is proven by mutliple sources even in the regiment).
So it'd be rulebreak going against rulebreak")

Leaving me with the opening question
Feezy played in the Match 2Lr vs. 1er aswell.
The rules and the situation are still the same, so why is there a different outcome?
It is the same case, so a diffrent punishment would be unjustified.

Repeating the most important points, as it is important to me that everyone knows about them and doenst call us unsportsmanlike. Because we didnt have a bad attendance on purpose
We disbanded our CL team and went back to playing with everyone as soon as we were told its not fair in their opinion. (We initially had a different oppinion on that but changed it afterwards. It is important to note that we still expected 17 ppl. besides having a CL team)
We didnt break a rule by having a bad attendance.
1er broke the same rule in their match against us as in their match against nr4.

I've tried to settle this without publically posting about it and adressed this already in the Cl ref. chat.
Even someone from 1er said "Just to Make sure, either 2Lr AND nr.4 get the points or none of these"

I really cant see why our match was left unadressed then.

[close]

Stop crying.

[Goodest]

For the 2Lr case there are just too many variables that are more than questionable and vague so it ends up being one word against the other. In that case I'd call it in dubio pro reo meaning the 1er can keep their points.

me using latin

[close]

How is this "one word against the other"?
Feezy using the HP mod against Nr4 is proven... It is a ridiculous assumption that he somehow removed the health display from the mod in the match against us and then added it again when playing against Nr. 4.

Spoiler

[close]

Just compare this two images... They are the same he just didnt open the scoreboard in the match against us.

[TxM]

All this speculative dribble , The admins need hard evidence proving your points not what you know to the best of your knowledge. Last night Feezy was caught red handed with this HP mod, now if you have any hard evidence approach myself or another admin.

[Octanidas]

Day of Cavalry League Announcement: 4th of July

Day of the first Match: 20th of September

I think there was enough time to question the rules. But nobody did, everyone accepted them.

So please explain why some guys start disrespecting the rules after they were applied. The consequences of the HP Mod usage for the whole Team are mentioned in the rules. Maybe discuss this topic before the start of the Tournament?

I think the Admin Team has already enough chaos to deal with. If you want to help for further rule changes, write a constructive comment. But spare this thread with toxic stuff or inconclusive arguments which were mentioned many times before.

Btw Sharkie, i think every Regiment fought in a very hard way to earn their points/rounds, not just your Regiment.

[Chuckster]

For the 2Lr case there are just too many variables that are more than questionable and vague so it ends up being one word against the other. In that case I'd call it in dubio pro reo meaning the 1er can keep their points.

me using latin

[close]

How is this "one word against the other"?
Feezy using the HP mod against Nr4 is proven... It is a ridiculous assumption that he somehow removed the health display from the mod in the match against us and then added it again when playing against Nr. 4.

Stop crying.

[Goodest]

All this speculative dribble , The admins need hard evidence proving your points not what you know to the best of your knowledge. Last night Feezy was caught red handed with this HP mod, now if you have any hard evidence approach myself or another admin.

Spoiler

[close]

how does this not prove the case?