EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

No, it's not, for all the reasons I have stated. Besides, your complaint is stupid as the rules ARE open to interpretation here and they have EXPLICITLY said as much. What are you NOT seeing, here? How are you able to be this obtuse?

You can stamp your feet and ASK for hard rules all you want, but the rules of the tournament which you are referring to are NOT hard and fast rules and it literally says this.

I .. I just don't know what to say. How can you keep on saying "the rules are hard" when the rules themselves state the opposite of this?

I literally don't give a **** what you WANT the rules to be, I am telling you what they are.

Also, I ask again, what "hard and fast" interpretation of "competition" can you POSSIBLY try to assert, here?

Options:

1) Run away. Pointless, he can earn no points. Denying the other team points may or may not be beneficial, depending on who that would put through
2) Fight them. the literal definition. This results in him dying and the match being over. This is what happened.

I frankly have no idea of your problem, since you are quoting a rule which is meant to be a guideline for interpretation and flapping your arms claiming it is a "hard and fast" rule of which there can BE no hard and fast interpretation.

One last time, the rules are SPECIFICALLY stated NOT to be hard and fast.

My allegories to the legal system are perfectly valid as the legislature > application relationship is the same there as it is here, and indeed in many sports, where a Judge resides over whether the given action is outside of the rules based on interpretation.

Please, write me your "hard and fast" rule and I will show you the issue with it right away. They do not work.

Lets go back to the soccer example. When is a goal disallowed due to offside? What hard and fast rule applies? You tell me sports don't work with loose rules, so give me the "hard and fast" offside rule, please. Hint: there isn't one.

Please, I want to hear from a self interested party about how your interpretation of a rule deliberately open to interpretation is the right one, and anything else is wrong.

I mean, it's not like I can do this:

and literally quote where it says the rules are open to interpretation, is it?

But you're right. I do not understand how you can, in all honestly, have the opinion you do, since it requires some very defective thinking I'm not burdened with.

It should be noted that the spirit of the interpretation has been stated to make sure it

So I ask - what is more entertaining, watching a frigate kite for the rest of the match, or watching it explode for 2billion ISK? Since competing was impossible for the frigate (he had no chance) how can you say his not shooting is evidence of no competition? Surely, one part of "competing" is that one needs to have a chance, no?

he's in pizza. they're a 4chan guild. you're being trolled.

No, my whole argument is based on the fact that the ATX rules say that they will be interpreted by a judge, are not hard and fast rules (please find me one) yet you are waving your hands in the air and saying a rule has been violated and someone has to be punished.

You also don't know what a logical fallacy is. At best, I used hyperbole (not a logical fallacy) to suggest it is impossible but the reality is the only chance to win was from external factors (the whole other team disconnecting).

It is up to the judges to decide (as per the written rules) whether the competitor was not competing and they ruled that they were. That's really the long and short of it and all your crying and wailing isn't going to do anything about it.

No rule as written supersedes the judge's ruling on the matter, so I ask again which rule you think was violated?

I've challenged you this a couple of times now and you keep talking about football - I'll also note you lost that discussion since there is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes a goal in football, either.

This thread gave me autism.

I never mentioned test but because they are the obvious example. How is it fair that they can pay someone off to throw some extra points their way (even tho they already won, we know it wasnt about winning at that point because the win would not have even mattered without the extra points) potentially excluding another team from entrance into the next stage that fought a fair match but had just a few less points. Not to mention TEST is basically GOONS B team as they have never been red to each other we know that these teams would be happy for either one if the other won the whole thing. So the richest corps or the ones willing to bribe now have a better overall chance of winning because they have more teams in the finals. (and yes more teams doesnt mean they will win but statistically it gives them better odds... its not fair, it is just the same as throwing matches) No point in defending these actions, eventually it will go too far... and ccp will have to go back again and say this is all not allowed lets just hope they act sooner rather then waiting till the finals stages.

That retainer payment to Khanh'rhh & Khanh'rhh was the best investment we ever made.

OMG its a mad mad world in eve..

I'll ask again since most of you seem to have selective reading; assuming Hydra and Outbreak were allowed to compete, and were paired against each other, do you honestly think CCP would have let Hydra sell Outbreak their last frigate for any sum?

I agree. I don't understand why buying a win, striking deals to finesse points, etc should be allowed when other forms of collusion are explicitly banned. I can't stand watching a good match grind to a halt while teams offer isk and then have the winning team make a beeline for the boundary or self destruct. It's boring as all hell, it's as awful as hydra/outbreaks match last year.