These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Making deals in ATX
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#21 - 2012-07-08 21:29:29 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Capqu wrote:
The enemy have many elite space ships on the field, they are not frigates.

It looks bleak for you, but you have not lost yet.


Yeah that Keres was going to demolish the Vindicator and Oneiros in the last 20 seconds of the match


I agree, it probably wouldn't have won. I am not denying that. What I am saying is, they clearly didn't compete, which is clearly against the rules. Do you dispute that? If not, why weren't the rules enforced?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Ophey Won
Inviolable
Omnivores
#22 - 2012-07-08 22:36:14 UTC
The match had already been won by Test. All they did was bribe the last frig to come in close and fight. Oh wait the frig can win. The two point lost dose not hurt the losing team, but help put Test into the finales.
Zastrow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-07-08 22:39:00 UTC
Ophey Won wrote:
The match had already been won by Test. All they did was bribe the last frig to come in close and fight. Oh wait the frig can win. The two point lost dose not hurt the losing team, but help put Test into the finales.


http://at.eve-ic.net/10/?view=rankings

and 2 points would have moved TEST down like 4 ranks. They made the cut to the groups by the SLIMMEST of margins
Faife
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#24 - 2012-07-08 22:57:39 UTC
Our team is powered by pizza tears.

This thread makes us strong and we are competing at full force.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#25 - 2012-07-08 23:25:01 UTC
Faife wrote:
Our team is powered by pizza tears.

This thread makes us strong and we are competing at full force.


There is no need to be so defensive, no-one is accusing your team. It was your opponent who violated the rules, not you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-07-09 09:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Capqu wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
Quote:
For Alliance Tournament X the referees can call a match null and void or declare a result if they believe that one of the teams is not competing. This tournament is designed to showcase the talents of pilots and should be entertaining.

l2r


Are you honestly that stupid? Or am I being le trolled xDDddD? Oh golly...

I'm honestly that stupid.

It would have been very easy for CCP to write the rule as:

Quote:
The Match will be called null and void (or a result will be declared by the referees) if the referees believe that one of the teams is not competing.

But instead they chose to word it in a way that gives the referees full discretion over whether to apply penalties or not even if they believe that the match was fixed.

There is no obligation on the referees to enforce this rule.

.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#27 - 2012-07-09 09:53:41 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
...


In that vein,

Quote:

Participants should be prepared, in their chosen ships and in a fleet, 30 minutes before their scheduled fight time. Teams will be brought by a GM to a star system in uncharted space and designated as Team 1 and Team 2. If you are not ready with this time allocation you will be disqualified from this match and the opposing team will receive maximum points as a result.

They should be, but they don't have to be!

Quote:

If your flagship is destroyed, it may not be fielded again during the tournament.

So it might be...

Quote:

Teams may field no more than 1 logistics ship.

Then again, maybe they will!

Do you see why what you are saying is nonsense now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#28 - 2012-07-09 12:20:08 UTC
ITT OP tries to twist the semantics on a statment to make it seem like a single EWAR frigate had the only option of running away.

Anything else was not "competing"

Personally I really wanted to watch it avoid the other ships for the rest of the match and feel utterly robbed that I had to both watch it explode AND realize there was metagaming in my EvE.

In case you can't tell, I am being sarrrrrcastic
- Homer

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#29 - 2012-07-09 13:09:40 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
ITT OP tries to twist the semantics on a statment to make it seem like a single EWAR frigate had the only option of running away.

Anything else was not "competing"

Personally I really wanted to watch it avoid the other ships for the rest of the match and feel utterly robbed that I had to both watch it explode AND realize there was metagaming in my EvE.

In case you can't tell, I am being sarrrrrcastic
- Homer


Twist the semantics? What?

You can't twist semantics. You can argue semantics versus intended meaning, but rules are generally intended to be free from any room for differing interpretations.

Meta-gaming refers to gaming outside of the actual game [in this case the 6v6 match], things like anticipating their fleet comp and bringing a counter. Or in a game of soccer/hand-egg, resting your best players when playing a weaker opponent, to do better overall. Paying off the opponent isn't meta-gaming, it's cheating. No one looks at the Serie A scandal and calls it meta gaming, they call it cheating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#30 - 2012-07-09 13:34:39 UTC
Capqu wrote:
rules are generally intended to be free from any room for differing interpretations

This is both patently false and also the exact reason rules like this ARE deliberately vague.
Quote:
Paying off the opponent isn't meta-gaming, it's cheating

Can you quote the rule that says this?

Hint: see above for why your answer won't be valid.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#31 - 2012-07-09 13:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Capqu wrote:
rules are generally intended to be free from any room for differing interpretations

This is both patently false and also the exact reason rules like this ARE deliberately vague.
Quote:
Paying off the opponent isn't meta-gaming, it's cheating

Can you quote the rule that says this?

Hint: see above for why your answer won't be valid.


You're saying rules aren't generally intended to be free from differing interpretations? Rules are deliberately vague? Do you actually have some sort of learning disability? Rules are intended to be hard and fast, otherwise you would call them guidelines or suggestions or some other wishy washy ****. Concrete rules are required for any serious competition, I don't think you'll find many people agreeing that that fact is up for debate.

Imagine if a goal in soccer was counted "when the ball is at least a little bit over the line." Nice and vague, open to several interpretations. I assure you the actual rule is not like that, because as incompetent as the FIFA are, I'm sure they put someone with at least a basic grasp of literature in charge of writing their rules.

Meta-gaming is gaming things outside of the game but within the rules. This is outside the rules as per the rule I linked in the OP, thus not meta-gaming, but instead cheating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Dank Man
#32 - 2012-07-09 15:39:33 UTC
I think teams should go ahead based on how good they were at killing their opponents... not how big of a bribe they can throw around to garner points to make it on to further rounds and get lucky... or play against a friendly alliance anyways... if its rigged even a bit where is the line, when can you start to ask for players to suicide for billions, how late into the rounds are we gonna see this? I think you already drew the line when you said none of it can be allowed, so i say stop it here and now like you already did, and from here on out it will have to be backroom deals and if people get caught they lose their spot to compete possible suspension for multiple a"AT"s. I'm surprised ccp hasn't commented on this yet, pretty disappointing after such harsh treatment of last years finalists.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#33 - 2012-07-09 15:48:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Capqu wrote:
You're saying rules aren't generally intended to be free from differing interpretations? Rules are deliberately vague? Do you actually have some sort of learning disability? Rules are intended to be hard and fast, otherwise you would call them guidelines or suggestions or some other wishy washy ****. Concrete rules are required for any serious competition, I don't think you'll find many people agreeing that that fact is up for debate.

You are wrong on every count, sorry.

Yes, they are deliberately vague to avoid drawing an absolute line. This is why they say "at the discretion of" and not "any payment is a violation" -- it's why they say "not competing" instead of "not firing all weapons."

Sreegs literally said EXACTLY this in the rules and discussions about ATX ahead of time. So who has the learning disability? The guy stating *exactly what the event organizers said would be the case* or you making up your own semantic definitions?

I'm about to blow your mind, so sit down.

"Statutory Interpretation"

In law, this is the process where "the rules" are interpreted. The interpretations are open to discussion, and change based on legal precedent (a judge ruling X is a valid interpretation of Y).

Look, here, have a link buddy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Try to tell me again that all rules are "hard and fast" when every legal system in the Western World is based on *exactly the opposite of this* being more logical. Please, entertain me.

Quote:
Imagine if a goal in soccer was counted "when the ball is at least a little bit over the line."

Except, the ball crossing the line doesn't always indicate a goal based on what else is happening, much like how contact between two players is interpreted on the fly as either a "foul" or not and there is a very loose definition of what actually constitutes a foul, which is often applied differently.

Another example: there's no rule that says shooting someone is a crime, because it isn't.

I suggest you look it up. You have a very weak grasp of what you are arguing, luckily CCP don't.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#34 - 2012-07-09 15:59:50 UTC
You also didn't link the rule where it said paying someone for points when the victory was certain was against the rules.

So either rules are "DA LAW AS WRITTEN LITERALLY" in which case it was allowed, or they're open to interpretation which means this is an allowable action if granted as such.

Have you seen how weak your argument is? Sad

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Ophey Won
Inviolable
Omnivores
#35 - 2012-07-09 16:09:48 UTC
Dank Man wrote:
I think teams should go ahead based on how good they were at killing their opponents... not how big of a bribe they can throw around to garner points to make it on to further rounds and get lucky... or play against a friendly alliance anyways... if its rigged even a bit where is the line, when can you start to ask for players to suicide for billions, how late into the rounds are we gonna see this? I think you already drew the line when you said none of it can be allowed, so i say stop it here and now like you already did, and from here on out it will have to be backroom deals and if people get caught they lose their spot to compete possible suspension for multiple a"AT"s. I'm surprised ccp hasn't commented on this yet, pretty disappointing after such harsh treatment of last years finalists.



A) Test did not pay for a win. They had won already. What they payed for is to have the last frig fight them.

B) What Hydra and Outbreak did was different in the fact that one team was winning and then self-destructed.

And I don't think you will see much meta gaming from here on out. Now all you need to advance is to win. No more points. Win and move on, lose and your out. As long as we don't have a " A and B" teams I don't think anyone will trow the match.


p.s. I personally thought the meta-gaming live made it more interesting not less. When test payed 3 billion for the frig to fight them they had no idea if it would get them in the tournament. If one team would of scored more they would be out, and paid the 3 billion for nothing.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#36 - 2012-07-09 16:13:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Capqu wrote:
You're saying rules aren't generally intended to be free from differing interpretations? Rules are deliberately vague? Do you actually have some sort of learning disability? Rules are intended to be hard and fast, otherwise you would call them guidelines or suggestions or some other wishy washy ****. Concrete rules are required for any serious competition, I don't think you'll find many people agreeing that that fact is up for debate.

You are wrong on every count, sorry.

Yes, they are deliberately vague to avoid drawing an absolute line. This is why they say "at the discretion of" and not "any payment is a violation" -- it's why they say "not competing" instead of "not firing all weapons."

Sreegs literally said EXACTLY this in the rules and discussions about ATX ahead of time. So who has the learning disability? The guy stating *exactly what the event organizers said would be the case* or you making up your own semantic definitions?

I'm about to blow your mind, so sit down.

"Statutory Interpretation"

In law, this is the process where "the rules" are interpreted. The interpretations are open to discussion, and change based on legal precedent (a judge ruling X is a valid interpretation of Y).

Look, here, have a link buddy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Try to tell me again that all rules are "hard and fast" when every legal system in the Western World is based on *exactly the opposite of this* being more logical. Please, entertain me.

Quote:
Imagine if a goal in soccer was counted "when the ball is at least a little bit over the line."

Except, the ball crossing the line doesn't always indicate a goal based on what else is happening, much like how contact between two players is interpreted on the fly as either a "foul" or not and there is a very loose definition of what actually constitutes a foul, which is often applied differently.

Another example: there's no rule that says shooting someone is a crime, because it isn't.

I suggest you look it up. You have a very weak grasp of what you are arguing, luckily CCP don't.


Law doesn't process "the rules." They process something like a constitution or the Manga Carta in order to produce rules to govern society. Regardless, law is very different to a game or competition. It involves morality, culture and a whole host of other things and is concerned with more than just fair play and competition.

In a game environment it is completely wrong to have vague or soft rules. No competitive game should strives to have rules which are open to interpretation, they are all as clear as possible. The goal of any game is to win, and teams will always interpret these rules in the way that benefits them the most, so interpretation must be eliminated to have an equal playing field.

The fact is, there is a rule which at face value says non-competition is not tolerated. Some people decided not to compete. They have paraded the fact that they did not compete, and still, were unpunished. This rubs me the wrong way, so I either wanted clarification of the rules, or action taken.

I appreciate you trying to enlighten me as to your point of view, but your viewpoint is clouded by faith in a team as undeserving as any. Let me ask you this: assuming Hydra and Outbreak were allowed to compete, do you honestly think they would have let Hydra sell Outbreak their last frigate for any sum?

edit:
Obviously I didn't mean that would be the entire rule for a goal in soccer, I was merely giving you an example. If that is the extent you are able to refute my argument, I ask you please not to post further in my thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#37 - 2012-07-09 16:15:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
Ophey Won wrote:
Dank Man wrote:
I think teams should go ahead based on how good they were at killing their opponents... not how big of a bribe they can throw around to garner points to make it on to further rounds and get lucky... or play against a friendly alliance anyways... if its rigged even a bit where is the line, when can you start to ask for players to suicide for billions, how late into the rounds are we gonna see this? I think you already drew the line when you said none of it can be allowed, so i say stop it here and now like you already did, and from here on out it will have to be backroom deals and if people get caught they lose their spot to compete possible suspension for multiple a"AT"s. I'm surprised ccp hasn't commented on this yet, pretty disappointing after such harsh treatment of last years finalists.



A) Test did not pay for a win. They had won already. What they payed for is to have the last frig fight them.

B) What Hydra and Outbreak did was different in the fact that one team was winning and then self-destructed.

And I don't think you will see much meta gaming from here on out. Now all you need to advance is to win. No more points. Win and move on, lose and your out. As long as we don't have a " A and B" teams I don't think anyone will trow the match.


p.s. I personally thought the meta-gaming live made it more interesting not less. When test payed 3 billion for the frig to fight them they had no idea if it would get them in the tournament. If one team would of scored more they would be out, and paid the 3 billion for nothing.


It unquestionably makes it more interesting. I was personally hoping the frigate would take the 2bn and peace out Cool but my guild tag tells you why that is.

I'm not debating any of the points you brought up, I'm just saying the team that sold the frigate clearly not competing at that point, which is clearly against the rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Ophey Won
Inviolable
Omnivores
#38 - 2012-07-09 16:35:06 UTC
Capqu wrote:


I'm not debating any of the points you brought up, I'm just saying the team that sold the frigate clearly not competing at that point, which is clearly against the rules.


How is running away from a fight competing. Is not it more competitive to charge back in and try to fight. Plus they made billions to fight. How is that wrong.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#39 - 2012-07-09 16:58:46 UTC
Ophey Won wrote:
Capqu wrote:


I'm not debating any of the points you brought up, I'm just saying the team that sold the frigate clearly not competing at that point, which is clearly against the rules.


How is running away from a fight competing. Is not it more competitive to charge back in and try to fight. Plus they made billions to fight. How is that wrong.


I never said flying away was competing. What I said was, selling the death of your last ship is not competing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Rer Eirikr
The Scope
#40 - 2012-07-09 17:28:02 UTC
Space Lawyers Roll