These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CODE. disqualified from AT XII

First post First post
Author
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#81 - 2014-08-22 15:27:47 UTC
Looks like it took a permanent ban from the tournament to get CODE to respond to CCP's attempts at contact. Lol

Bravo to CCP. Nothing quite throws a wrench in a tournament like a team no-showing with no warning. It's happened to me with SCL before, and it really screws things up when you're trying to retain viewers for something that by its nature has frequent breaks from the action that can last anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#82 - 2014-08-22 16:05:01 UTC
Throwing the match isn't the issue. Logging off and not contacting the organizers is. It shows a severe lack of sportsmanship and thus the disqualification from all future events. The response from CHODE. reinforces the validity of that judgement.
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#83 - 2014-08-22 16:07:49 UTC
Cheating in AT = Disqualification from that AT, but no perma-ban.
"Infraction X" in AT = Permaban from AT.

Could someone please fill in "Infraction X" above, which CODE. alliance committed. Obviously, "Infraction X" must be far, far worse than cheating. No-showing, even no-showing without warning, isn't worse than cheating.

If 1) no-showing without warning = AT permaban, then surely:
2) cheating = AT permaban at least, if not EVE permaban.

What was CODE.'s "Infraction X"? Because if we're just talking about "no-show without warning", I'm not seeing correct proportionality in CCP's sanction of that relative to how they sanctioned pure cheating.

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.

Sergeant Justice
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2014-08-22 16:09:37 UTC
Judging from this and that minerbumping site + comments, CODE are the EvE version of Tumblr SJWs ?

I'm confused, what's going on? At least it's moderately entertaining at parts. (although site is horrible)


Honestly it's still a little harsh to ban the alliance. Guess they can always make xXCODEXx or CODE RELOADED or CODE ALLIANCE RELOADED if they want to join later.
Rayo Atra
THE AESIR.
Hostile Probes
#85 - 2014-08-22 16:10:27 UTC
infraction X = annoying CCP id guess.

If it was my company that's all it would take.

Tell you what I do like though: A killer. A dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold-blooded, clean, methodical and thorough.

-Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

TharOkha
0asis Group
#86 - 2014-08-22 16:24:15 UTC
Revis Owen wrote:

What was CODE.'s "Infraction X"? Because if we're just talking about "no-show without warning", I'm not seeing correct proportionality in CCP's sanction of that relative to how they sanctioned pure cheating.


CODE. shoot newbies and calls it "fair contest"

CCP perma-bans CODE from AT and calls it fair verdict.

This is EVE dude, harsh, cold universe, full of injustice, treason and without any honor Blink

loyalanon
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#87 - 2014-08-22 16:41:07 UTC
CCP Gargant wrote:
Greetings everyone!

Keeping everything crystal clear, I wanted to open a topic on this subject.

CODE. did not show up for their scheduled match against Red vs. Blue nor did they make any attempt to inform the tournament organizers of their status. We have decided to interpret their actions as a sign of resignation from the tournament. As such they have been disqualified from Alliance Tournament XII and CODE. will not be able to enter future Alliance Tournaments.

Circle-Of-Two will thus get a bye in their scheduled match against CODE. on Sunday the 24th and all subsequent matches that day will happen 20 minutes earlier than initially scheduled.

Please keep discussions about this topic in this thread.

Thanks!


So Serious question and I would appreciate a response CCP Gargant.

If Goonswarm, or any other (i was about to say null sec) Alliance did not show up for Alliance Tournament for "whatever" reason (considering you 100% do not know CodeDots reason) would they too be eligible for a permanent ban from future alliance tournaments? And what is the reasoning behind Codes ban compared too other teams in the past who have forfeited in previous alliance tournaments.

inb4 random npc alts posting tears/comebacks "but your code"

Serious question for "CCP" Gargant.

and inb4 no response from CCP because xxx reason and (I deal with xxx petitions daily F### you code)
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#88 - 2014-08-22 16:45:40 UTC
Revis Owen wrote:
Cheating in AT = Disqualification from that AT, but no perma-ban.
"Infraction X" in AT = Permaban from AT.

Could someone please fill in "Infraction X" above, which CODE. alliance committed. Obviously, "Infraction X" must be far, far worse than cheating. No-showing, even no-showing without warning, isn't worse than cheating.

If 1) no-showing without warning = AT permaban, then surely:
2) cheating = AT permaban at least, if not EVE permaban.

What was CODE.'s "Infraction X"? Because if we're just talking about "no-show without warning", I'm not seeing correct proportionality in CCP's sanction of that relative to how they sanctioned pure cheating.

I think you're not looking at it from the correct perspective. The purpose of the rules is to make for a more or less entertaining and professional performance for the viewing audience, other teams and the organizer. Cheating is often just one of the teams wanting to win so badly they resort to forbidden methods. Such action warrants a slap, since they performed mostly as desired from the view of the overall purpose of the event. They just need a reminder to stay within the rules and to ensure others, that the competition is fair. On the other hand, a team which chooses to just bail without a justified reason or notification when the match is already set up, broadcast has been organized and public is waiting for the match to start, is pretty much the worst case scenario for a tournament. They let everyone down, embarrassed the organizer, didn't provide their end of the promised entertainment and caused everyone involved extra trouble and inconvenience. To top it off they ran away without a word like little children who were afraid of their parents scolding. CCP would be foolish to take a chance with unreliable and irresponsible trash like that a second time, when there is no shortage of willing, capable and reliable teams who want to compete.
John Frohike
Eve Defence Force
DARKNESS.
#89 - 2014-08-22 17:03:27 UTC
loyalanon wrote:
CCP Gargant wrote:
Greetings everyone!

Keeping everything crystal clear, I wanted to open a topic on this subject.

CODE. did not show up for their scheduled match against Red vs. Blue nor did they make any attempt to inform the tournament organizers of their status. We have decided to interpret their actions as a sign of resignation from the tournament. As such they have been disqualified from Alliance Tournament XII and CODE. will not be able to enter future Alliance Tournaments.

Circle-Of-Two will thus get a bye in their scheduled match against CODE. on Sunday the 24th and all subsequent matches that day will happen 20 minutes earlier than initially scheduled.

Please keep discussions about this topic in this thread.

Thanks!


So Serious question and I would appreciate a response CCP Gargant.

If Goonswarm, or any other (i was about to say null sec) Alliance did not show up for Alliance Tournament for "whatever" reason (considering you 100% do not know CodeDots reason) would they too be eligible for a permanent ban from future alliance tournaments? And what is the reasoning behind Codes ban compared too other teams in the past who have forfeited in previous alliance tournaments.

inb4 random npc alts posting tears/comebacks "but your code"

Serious question for "CCP" Gargant.

and inb4 no response from CCP because xxx reason and (I deal with xxx petitions daily F### you code)


File a petition?

Also, the massive taunting of CCP after your no-show probably didn't help your case.
Denidil
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2014-08-22 17:06:18 UTC
This is why you at least tell CCP "hey guys, we can't make it"

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Adrie Atticus
Circle Mercs
#91 - 2014-08-22 17:07:57 UTC
Revis Owen wrote:
Cheating in AT = Disqualification from that AT, but no perma-ban.
"Infraction X" in AT = Permaban from AT.

Could someone please fill in "Infraction X" above, which CODE. alliance committed. Obviously, "Infraction X" must be far, far worse than cheating. No-showing, even no-showing without warning, isn't worse than cheating.

If 1) no-showing without warning = AT permaban, then surely:
2) cheating = AT permaban at least, if not EVE permaban.

What was CODE.'s "Infraction X"? Because if we're just talking about "no-show without warning", I'm not seeing correct proportionality in CCP's sanction of that relative to how they sanctioned pure cheating.


Well, if one player breaks a rule, they get penalized depending on the infraction and can at most lead to banning from all future ATs. No idea what a single player would have to do to earn this.

In CODE.'s case, 12 players (including the captain) failed to show up and the captain failed to stay in the Captain's channel at all times. That's 13 infractions and CCP decided that it's good enough to ban CODE. from all future ATs.

...13 infractions.

Just an educated guess.
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#92 - 2014-08-22 17:16:56 UTC
as a guess I don't think the word educated is appropriate, you are being far too generous

team that cheats surely has just as many members?

your spin was tenuous weak sauce at best and that's me being generous
Tyrus Tenebros
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#93 - 2014-08-22 18:33:37 UTC
Are people in this thread seriously suggesting an organization with the reputation of CODE. wouldn't simply try to stir things up again similarly? OF COURSE they got permabanned as soon as they showed a propensity to use the AT as a showman stage and not a combat competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habit_evidence

if you'd like to try to imply character evidence not being directly admissible in US courts is somehow relevant to CCP making a game ruling.
roigon
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#94 - 2014-08-22 18:51:24 UTC
Regardless of who or what CODE is, CCP has been pretty clear that the AT is special and TQ antics will not be appreciated if it interferes with providing entertaining matches.

The given sanction was listed in the AT rules as the harshest penalty CCP was prepared to dish out. Simply logging off just before your match is probably the biggest middle finger you can give to the AT and it's organisers. Colour me unsurprised that CCP chose to dish out the harshest penalty.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#95 - 2014-08-22 18:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Revis Owen wrote:
Cheating in AT = Disqualification from that AT, but no perma-ban.
"Infraction X" in AT = Permaban from AT.

Could someone please fill in "Infraction X" above, which CODE. alliance committed. Obviously, "Infraction X" must be far, far worse than cheating. No-showing, even no-showing without warning, isn't worse than cheating.

If 1) no-showing without warning = AT permaban, then surely:
2) cheating = AT permaban at least, if not EVE permaban.

What was CODE.'s "Infraction X"? Because if we're just talking about "no-show without warning", I'm not seeing correct proportionality in CCP's sanction of that relative to how they sanctioned pure cheating.


Well, if one player breaks a rule, they get penalized depending on the infraction and can at most lead to banning from all future ATs. No idea what a single player would have to do to earn this.

In CODE.'s case, 12 players (including the captain) failed to show up and the captain failed to stay in the Captain's channel at all times. That's 13 infractions and CCP decided that it's good enough to ban CODE. from all future ATs.

...13 infractions.

Just an educated guess.

More to the point, not only didn't they show up... they didn't even bother to notify CCP that they could not be there at all.

Of course, once they made a point of flaunting that it was just a big troll on CCP (more accurately at all of us) then CCP is fully correct in using their own discretion in the matter.

Kids, this is why CCP always allows themselves some wriggle room in their wording... so that manipulative players can't get away with finding a loop hole to exploit. This is also why those players are so vocal in demanding CCP give them extremely specific guidelines... because that makes it easier to find and continually exploit those loop holes.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#96 - 2014-08-22 18:57:18 UTC
loyalanon wrote:
CCP Gargant wrote:
Greetings everyone!

Keeping everything crystal clear, I wanted to open a topic on this subject.

CODE. did not show up for their scheduled match against Red vs. Blue nor did they make any attempt to inform the tournament organizers of their status. We have decided to interpret their actions as a sign of resignation from the tournament. As such they have been disqualified from Alliance Tournament XII and CODE. will not be able to enter future Alliance Tournaments.

Circle-Of-Two will thus get a bye in their scheduled match against CODE. on Sunday the 24th and all subsequent matches that day will happen 20 minutes earlier than initially scheduled.

Please keep discussions about this topic in this thread.

Thanks!


So Serious question and I would appreciate a response CCP Gargant.

If Goonswarm, or any other (i was about to say null sec) Alliance did not show up for Alliance Tournament for "whatever" reason (considering you 100% do not know CodeDots reason) would they too be eligible for a permanent ban from future alliance tournaments? And what is the reasoning behind Codes ban compared too other teams in the past who have forfeited in previous alliance tournaments.

inb4 random npc alts posting tears/comebacks "but your code"

Serious question for "CCP" Gargant.

and inb4 no response from CCP because xxx reason and (I deal with xxx petitions daily F### you code)


I'm pretty sure it is your attitude toward the tourney that warranted the harsher response.

♦ Did you communicate your inability to field a team to CCP prior to the match?

♦ Did you apologize to CCP about your lack of communication, or did you simply brag that your callous disregard for playing in the tourney with the blog post "they will always remember the CODEdot team. They have achieved immortality."

Seriously, you (CODE.) have openly stated you haven't put any effort into the tournament, that you are ill prepared, and that CODE. is at the heart of drama everywhere they play. Our AT Organizers have spent many unpaid hours organizing the tourney, accommodating the thousands of players involved, and setting up a highly publicized event for the players of this game. When your alliance has made it abundantly clear that the only reason they are participating in the AT is to cause drama and stir up ****, do you really think it is inappropriate for CCP to simply say "Be gone from the tournament"?

Black Pedro
Mine.
#97 - 2014-08-22 19:14:31 UTC
roigon wrote:
Regardless of who or what CODE is, CCP has been pretty clear that the AT is special and TQ antics will not be appreciated if it interferes with providing entertaining matches.

The given sanction was listed in the AT rules as the harshest penalty CCP was prepared to dish out. Simply logging off just before your match is probably the biggest middle finger you can give to the AT and it's organisers. Colour me unsurprised that CCP chose to dish out the harshest penalty.


It still seems a little disproportionate to me. If actual cheating (i.e. match fixing) was not met with a permanent ban in previous years, why such a harsh penalty for simply not showing up? Something plenty of teams have done before in the past with no penalty other than forfeiting that match. Also a permaban penalizes a whole alliance forever for something that is the fault of one (the team captain) or a few individuals.

By all means kick them out of the tournament (although forfeiture of the the match plus the public derision for bowing out seems punishment enough to me), but it appears to me that CODE. is being singled out with a permaban for reasons other than just not taking the field. It is of course CCP's right to do so, but what it isn't is fair or consistent enforcement of the rules.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#98 - 2014-08-22 19:22:17 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
roigon wrote:
Regardless of who or what CODE is, CCP has been pretty clear that the AT is special and TQ antics will not be appreciated if it interferes with providing entertaining matches.

The given sanction was listed in the AT rules as the harshest penalty CCP was prepared to dish out. Simply logging off just before your match is probably the biggest middle finger you can give to the AT and it's organisers. Colour me unsurprised that CCP chose to dish out the harshest penalty.


It still seems a little disproportionate to me. If actual cheating (i.e. match fixing) was not met with a permanent ban in previous years, why such a harsh penalty for simply not showing up? Something plenty of teams have done before in the past with no penalty other than forfeiting that match. Also a permaban penalizes a whole alliance forever for something that is the fault of one (the team captain) or a few individuals.

By all means kick them out of the tournament (although forfeiture of the the match plus the public derision for bowing out seems punishment enough to me), but it appears to me that CODE. is being singled out with a permaban for reasons other than just not taking the field. It is of course CCP's right to do so, but what it isn't is fair or consistent enforcement of the rules.

Sure it is.
Players that specifically go out of their way to disrupt the entire tournament receive a harsher penalty than those caught cheating for personal gain.

It doesn't get much more clear cut than that, as one is much, much more disruptive to the tournament than the other.

And... to put it bluntly... I don't really much care if the crap on my shoe gets upset when I scrape it off.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

roigon
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#99 - 2014-08-22 19:22:49 UTC
The hydra outbreak match you reference failed to be entertaining. If it had been entertaining nothing would probably have happened. But for a finals match is was simply too blatant too ignore.

Also do mind that a big part of the reason we now have double elimination instead of the points system is because the points system played match fixing and deals into hand. (among various other things obviously)

Slightly tounge-in-cheek. CODE failed to entertain.
Legetus Shmoof Metallii
Resilience.
DARKNESS.
#100 - 2014-08-22 19:34:12 UTC
The fact they do this and flaunt it to the playerbase as if they are something incredible is kinda insulting. I've gone up against the incredible hoard of the CFC a dozen times, losing some and winning some (Good fights all around), and the only thing I have to say is 'gf' in local. Sometimes us in MOA get utterly obliterated and yet STILL we put that 'gf' in local, and the CFC pilots do the same. Here, outside of the sandbox, in the AT, they mock the players, they mock CCP, they boast and brag and post in such an arrogant manner, that it's just insulting in a way (inb4 I take the game 2 srs). I wanted to see them destroyed, but after all that's happened and even beyond the laugh I've gotten out of it, I still get the feeling of "Seriously? They did that?". Whenever I see loyalanon or that DJ guy talk about it or James harp on and on and on, I get a kick of joy but also I get insulted. The ban they get is deserved. They didn't do it for the goodfights, they did it to cause trouble, whether planned or not. This is what they deserve. While CFC drops fleets from cyno domis in 5ZXX in search of goodfights, these guys give the middle finger to the entire playerbase and CCP. Good job guys, good job. While you're busy saving highsec, see if you can save your gosh darned reputation

O tempora o mores!