PlatinumHow about a longer pause duration? That's actually applicable to tf2. 5 minutes rolls fast as hell especially when it takes a few minutes to even figure out the problem.
What if team A got a couple of players who can only play until e.g. 11 p.m. and team B decide to be dicks and just pause forever?
5 minutes are usually enough to sort everything out, unless there's a major problem like a lot of players crashing and/or not coming back and/or not enough backups available and/or no ringers available and/or ringers getting denied.
[quote=Platinum]How about a longer pause duration? That's actually applicable to tf2. 5 minutes rolls fast as hell especially when it takes a few minutes to even figure out the problem.[/quote]
What if team A got a couple of players who can only play until e.g. 11 p.m. and team B decide to be dicks and just pause forever?
5 minutes are usually enough to sort everything out, unless there's a major problem like a lot of players crashing and/or not coming back and/or not enough backups available and/or no ringers available and/or ringers getting denied.
Setsul5 minutes are usually enough to sort everything out, unless there's a major problem like a lot of players crashing and/or not coming back and/or not enough backups available and/or no ringers available and/or ringers getting denied.
Which is exactly what happened and why this thread has over 60 posts because people are questioning the rule and whether the way everything was handled was legitimate
[quote=Setsul]5 minutes are usually enough to sort everything out, unless there's a major problem like a lot of players crashing and/or not coming back and/or not enough backups available and/or no ringers available and/or ringers getting denied.[/quote]
Which is exactly what happened and why this thread has over 60 posts because people are questioning the rule and whether the way everything was handled was legitimate
5 minutes to assess the problem, 5 minutes to get a backup on and in the server or attempt to, 5 minutes to get an admin involved if the first 10 doesn't resolve it. Not this 300 second countdown bullshit lol. But what I'm getting at is that 5 minutes is completely enforceable because it's written down for both teams to see. It's not right or wrong but it is the rule. Enforce the rule as it was prior to the situation and reevaluate afterwards.
5 minutes to assess the problem, 5 minutes to get a backup on and in the server or attempt to, 5 minutes to get an admin involved if the first 10 doesn't resolve it. Not this 300 second countdown bullshit lol. But what I'm getting at is that 5 minutes is completely enforceable because it's written down for both teams to see. It's not right or wrong but it is the rule. Enforce the rule as it was prior to the situation and reevaluate afterwards.
snowblindfrogWe expect Platinum teams to set an example of fairness and good sportsmanship and not to force an outcome through being a rules lawyer. MF9K was in the wrong for unpausing the match (after 7 minutes) when they did not initiate the pause in the first place. Is there a specifically written rule for this? No, and there shouldn't have to be. Engaging in a dialogue with the other team, ascertaining how much longer they needed to recover their players and being flexible with them to ensure a fair match is played is a show of good sportsmanship and I shouldn't have to tell that to anyone..let alone Platinum players. The 5 minute pause rule is a guideline and not one that we have ever enforced (to the minute) in any division...let alone in a Plat match with a direct monetary outcome. All rules (including this one) are subject to Head Admin interpretation and each match dispute is reviewed on a case by case basis.
What should have happened is that both teams got an admin innovated as this issue was occurring live. Had I been engaged I would have spoke with GC to find out how long they needed to get 9 back and would have allowed them to pause for up to 15 minutes. I don't believe that is remotely unreasonable to allow in the interest of fair play. Had they not been able to recover their 9 players then I would have allowed them to postpone the round that this occurred in to make it up the next night. Would I have done this in a regular season match in Iron? Probably not. But this is the playoffs. Do you think ESEA would allow a win at LAN over a technicality like pausing for a few too many minutes?
Initially I stated that MF9K's attack time of 8:59 was still in place and GC would get the chance to redo. But after talking wth Stabby, I agreed to his request to allow a full round redo. The clock time should be set by the players who are there at the time the round is played. So I agreed to allow MF9K to replay their attack round with the chance to set a better time.
I think we have been more than reasonable in our handling of this situation.
Had you been engaged, you would have spoken to GC. Had you been engaged. This phrase is the key; it's solely why the ruling to overturn the match results and force a round to be replayed is a poor decision on your part.
The purpose of rules is to ensure equal opportunity and fair play exist, while simultaneously predetermining the way a particular dispute will be settled. Unfortunately, there are going to be extenuating circumstances where exceptions to rules need to be made.
In the interest of fair play and equal opportunity, rules need to be followed and enforced. If you state that a pause can be a maximum of 5 minutes in your rules, it makes absolutely zero sense to then claim that the team who did not initiate the pause cannot resume the game after the 5 minute maximum pause time has been exceeded. If you want to make sure that the pausing team is always the unpausing team, even in the case of pauses which exceed their limits, state it in the rules. Making a claim that a team is in the wrong for doing something which you consider to be an unwritten rule (while following the WRITTEN rules) isn't just silly--it's completely asinine.
I understand that your rules don't echo the rules of ESEA, and I know that many UGC HL players don't participate in ESEA, but here is the pause rule as written in the ESEA league rules:
Player Disconnect - if a player disconnects, ONLY the Captain (or a designated player if the Captain disconnects) of the disconnected team may pause the round. The match will remain paused for five minutes, at which point the match can be unpaused by either team after issuing a 5 second warning. This means that games can be paused for longer than 5 minutes if the non-disconnected team agrees with extending the pause. Not unpausing the match will be seen as tacit approval of a pause extension.
This clause makes perfect sense. If you are willing to wait longer than 5 minutes, you wait. If you are not willing to wait longer than the allotted 5 minute period, you unpause and resume play. It sucks that this happened to GC, and in an ideal situation, the opposing team would kindly wait for substitute players to arrive, but I understand why a team who has been on the receiving end of poor sportsmanship multiple times would opt not to do so.
If GC had 3 players disconnect, the remaining players should have immediately contacted a UGC admin, alerted players on MF9K that an admin was being contacted, and if no admin responded immediately, made a post on the match comments page stating that an admin had been contacted but no response was received. If the admin did respond and deemed the issue was worthy of bypassing the pause time rule, the admin should have immediately contacted members of MF9K and alerted them that the pause rule was suspended due to extenuating circumstances. This should have occurred before the 5 minute limit was exceeded. Making an exception on the fly is one thing, but going back in the past and overturning results when the winning team's only offense was "following written rules" should only be considered in cases where an admin was not immediately available (as in, he was contacted but was not able to respond immediately).
[quote=snowblindfrog]We expect Platinum teams to set an example of fairness and good sportsmanship and not to force an outcome through being a rules lawyer. MF9K was in the wrong for unpausing the match (after 7 minutes) when they did not initiate the pause in the first place. Is there a specifically written rule for this? No, and there shouldn't have to be. Engaging in a dialogue with the other team, ascertaining how much longer they needed to recover their players and being flexible with them to ensure a fair match is played is a show of good sportsmanship and I shouldn't have to tell that to anyone..let alone Platinum players. The 5 minute pause rule is a guideline and not one that we have ever enforced (to the minute) in any division...let alone in a Plat match with a direct monetary outcome. All rules (including this one) are subject to Head Admin interpretation and each match dispute is reviewed on a case by case basis.
What should have happened is that both teams got an admin innovated as this issue was occurring live. [b]Had I been engaged I would have spoke with GC to find out how long they needed to get 9 back and would have allowed them to pause for up to 15 minutes[/b]. I don't believe that is remotely unreasonable to allow in the interest of fair play. Had they not been able to recover their 9 players then I would have allowed them to postpone the round that this occurred in to make it up the next night. Would I have done this in a regular season match in Iron? Probably not. But this is the playoffs. Do you think ESEA would allow a win at LAN over a technicality like pausing for a few too many minutes?
Initially I stated that MF9K's attack time of 8:59 was still in place and GC would get the chance to redo. But after talking wth Stabby, I agreed to his request to allow a full round redo. The clock time should be set by the players who are there at the time the round is played. So I agreed to allow MF9K to replay their attack round with the chance to set a better time.
I think we have been more than reasonable in our handling of this situation.[/quote]
Had you been engaged, you would have spoken to GC. [u][i]Had[/i][/u] [u][i]you[/i][/u] [u][i]been[/i][/u] [i][u]engaged[/u][/i]. This phrase is the key; it's solely why the ruling to overturn the match results and force a round to be replayed is a poor decision on your part.
The purpose of rules is to ensure equal opportunity and fair play exist, while simultaneously predetermining the way a particular dispute will be settled. Unfortunately, there are going to be extenuating circumstances where exceptions to rules [b]need to be made[/b].
In the interest of fair play and equal opportunity, rules need to be followed and enforced. If you state that a pause can be a maximum of 5 minutes in your rules, it makes absolutely zero sense to then claim that the team who did not initiate the pause cannot resume the game after the 5 minute maximum pause time has been exceeded. If you want to make sure that the pausing team is always the unpausing team, even in the case of pauses which exceed their limits, state it in the rules. Making a claim that a team is in the wrong for doing something which you consider to be an unwritten rule (while following the WRITTEN rules) isn't just silly--it's completely asinine.
I understand that your rules don't echo the rules of ESEA, and I know that many UGC HL players don't participate in ESEA, but here is the pause rule as written in the ESEA league rules:
[quote=]Player Disconnect - if a player disconnects, ONLY the Captain (or a designated player if the Captain disconnects) of the disconnected team may pause the round. The match will remain paused for five minutes, at which point the match [b]can be unpaused by either team after issuing a 5 second warning.[/b] This means that games can be paused for longer than 5 minutes if the non-disconnected team agrees with extending the pause. [b]Not unpausing the match will be seen as tacit approval of a pause extension.[/b] [/quote]
This clause makes perfect sense. If you are willing to wait longer than 5 minutes, you wait. If you are not willing to wait longer than the allotted 5 minute period, you unpause and resume play. It sucks that this happened to GC, and in an ideal situation, the opposing team would kindly wait for substitute players to arrive, but I understand why a team who has been on the receiving end of poor sportsmanship multiple times would opt not to do so.
If GC had 3 players disconnect, the remaining players should have immediately contacted a UGC admin, alerted players on MF9K that an admin was being contacted, and if no admin responded immediately, made a post on the match comments page stating that an admin had been contacted but no response was received. If the admin did respond and deemed the issue was worthy of bypassing the pause time rule, the admin should have immediately contacted members of MF9K and alerted them that the pause rule was suspended due to extenuating circumstances. This should have occurred before the 5 minute limit was exceeded. Making an exception on the fly is one thing, but going back in the past and overturning results when the winning team's only offense was "following written rules" should only be considered in cases where an admin was not immediately available (as in, he was contacted but was not able to respond immediately).
As an impartial spectator, I am happy that the final set will be replayed fully; I think this is the right decision and I want to see the lower bracket finals have a proper ending. However, I think that the situation was poorly handled by SOME players on both teams and that it is being handled especially poorly by the UGC League; much more poorly than the players did. I fully agree with exTine, Platinum and Smakers, as well as Stabby's words on page 2.
Rules are there for when a dispute arises and to prevent white knighting instead of being logically fair. When there is no dispute, rules aren't needed. Logically, this means that in the case of a dispute you can't just go "Well we aren't following the rules because I don't think they're appropriate". As was pointed out in previous posts, why even have rules if they are immediately ignored the very first time that they have to come into effect?
There was absolutely no need for an argument or for confusion: you apply the rules that are in place at the time of the incident and then evaluate any necessary changes later on(as Platinum more or less exactly stated). After everything plays out, you can get both of the team leaders together with a league admin and discuss any replaying of rounds, sets or entire matches between the three of them, with the league admin having the final say. I'd like to point out that if both teams just agree to follow the rules to the letter and then evaluate events after the match has finished, the team which could be considered hindered(not by their own fault) would most likely be more willing to consider replaying (parts of) the match, because there was no argument which made either party bitter towards the other in said match.
I frankly find it disgusting that (a) UGC (admin) would accuse a team who followed the rules to the letter of poor sportsmanship. In the context of the match and the match alone(excluding any events which preceded or followed the incident itself and should inherently not affect the decision making related to said incident) the rules are the only way to go at that point in time FOR BOTH TEAMS. Writing rules and then talking down to someone for applying the rules you wrote is quite simply and logically hypocrisy of the highest degree. It is a showing of a stark lack of leadership on the part of the involved UGC admins and clearly shows the incompetence of the responsible UGC admins when it comes to writing a comprehensive rule set. Please don't hide behind "sportsmanship" to hide the fact that you failed at constructing proper rules to govern your competition.
This whole situation actually reminded me of a rule in tennis which is designed to stop players from bouncing the ball for ages before they serve, which is obviously going to negatively affect the concentration of the receiving player. Since this rule was introduced(with an exact maximum of seconds denoted), there have been many instances where the referee is too lenient with the amount of seconds, resulting in the receiving player complaining. Whenever the rule had been followed, the serving player would sometimes get a bit upset in frustration, but would eventually accept the decision. As time has gone on, complaining has almost completely stopped by both receiving and serving parties. I think what can be learnt from this is that if you enforce a clear rule, competitors will eventually accept it without any negative feelings and that negative feelings mostly arise because of a lack of a clear dividing line maintained by the refereeing party in sports... and that includes e-sports.
I also feel sorry for the players on both of the teams who have received flak for things they tried to stay out of and remain impartial to.
tl;dr: Rules are rules. Enforce what you have, then discuss civilly if it wasn't satisfactory and then change them after the current competitive calendar draws to a conclusion.
As an impartial spectator, I am happy that the final set will be replayed fully; I think this is the right decision and I want to see the lower bracket finals have a proper ending. However, I think that the situation was poorly handled by SOME players on both teams and that it is being handled especially poorly by the UGC League; much more poorly than the players did. I fully agree with exTine, Platinum and Smakers, as well as Stabby's words on page 2.
Rules are there for when a dispute arises and to prevent white knighting instead of being logically fair. When there is no dispute, rules aren't needed. Logically, this means that in the case of a dispute you can't just go "Well we aren't following the rules because I don't think they're appropriate". As was pointed out in previous posts, why even have rules if they are immediately ignored the very first time that they have to come into effect?
There was absolutely no need for an argument or for confusion: you apply the rules that are in place at the time of the incident and then evaluate any necessary changes later on(as Platinum more or less exactly stated). After everything plays out, you can get both of the team leaders together with a league admin and discuss any replaying of rounds, sets or entire matches between the three of them, with the league admin having the final say. I'd like to point out that if both teams just agree to follow the rules to the letter and then evaluate events after the match has finished, the team which could be considered hindered(not by their own fault) would most likely be more willing to consider replaying (parts of) the match, because there was no argument which made either party bitter towards the other in said match.
I frankly find it disgusting that (a) UGC (admin) would accuse a team who followed the rules to the letter of poor sportsmanship. In the context of the match and the match alone(excluding any events which preceded or followed the incident itself and should inherently not affect the decision making related to said incident) the rules are the only way to go at that point in time FOR BOTH TEAMS. Writing rules and then talking down to someone for applying the rules you wrote is quite simply and logically hypocrisy of the highest degree. It is a showing of a stark lack of leadership on the part of the involved UGC admins and clearly shows the incompetence of the responsible UGC admins when it comes to writing a comprehensive rule set. Please don't hide behind "sportsmanship" to hide the fact that you failed at constructing proper rules to govern your competition.
This whole situation actually reminded me of a rule in tennis which is designed to stop players from bouncing the ball for ages before they serve, which is obviously going to negatively affect the concentration of the receiving player. Since this rule was introduced(with an exact maximum of seconds denoted), there have been many instances where the referee is too lenient with the amount of seconds, resulting in the receiving player complaining. Whenever the rule had been followed, the serving player would sometimes get a bit upset in frustration, but would eventually accept the decision. As time has gone on, complaining has almost completely stopped by both receiving and serving parties. I think what can be learnt from this is that if you enforce a clear rule, competitors will eventually accept it without any negative feelings and that negative feelings mostly arise because of a lack of a clear dividing line maintained by the refereeing party in sports... and that includes e-sports.
I also feel sorry for the players on both of the teams who have received flak for things they tried to stay out of and remain impartial to.
tl;dr: Rules are rules. Enforce what you have, then discuss civilly if it wasn't satisfactory and then change them after the current competitive calendar draws to a conclusion.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/bHsxRcG.jpg[/img]
At this point what would you expect UGC to do? They already made their decision, going back on it would just create more backlash about how they cant stick to their decisions.
It may be fucked up, but it happened, and it can't be undone. Maybe write an apology about how they stated that mf9k was being unsportsmanlike...
At this point what would you expect UGC to do? They already made their decision, going back on it would just create more backlash about how they cant stick to their decisions.
It may be fucked up, but it happened, and it can't be undone. Maybe write an apology about how they stated that mf9k was being unsportsmanlike...
lafaa123At this point what would you expect UGC to do? They already made their decision, going back on it would just create more backlash about how they cant stick to their decisions.
It's better to go back on an incorrect decision than set a precedence that will cause further issues in the future. Snowblindfrog should admit he made a mistake and apologize to GC, but the match result should stand. Its obvious he decided this without thinking of all the issues this will cause in the future, and how badly it reflects on the league. As much backlash as there would be with reversing the decision it is still the correct option to go with, and in the long run will make the league look better.
[quote=lafaa123]At this point what would you expect UGC to do? They already made their decision, going back on it would just create more backlash about how they cant stick to their decisions.[/quote]
It's better to go back on an incorrect decision than set a precedence that will cause further issues in the future. Snowblindfrog should admit he made a mistake and apologize to GC, but the match result should stand. Its obvious he decided this without thinking of all the issues this will cause in the future, and how badly it reflects on the league. As much backlash as there would be with reversing the decision it is still the correct option to go with, and in the long run will make the league look better.
rules are always going to be broken no matter what
in this case mf9k did what they thought was right in their situation
and gc thought it was wrong
but i think the admins did make the best of what they could in this case
and kept one final round to settle it all
rules are always going to be broken no matter what
in this case mf9k did what they thought was right in their situation
and gc thought it was wrong
but i think the admins did make the best of what they could in this case
and kept one final round to settle it all
oov_douchebaglafaa123At this point what would you expect UGC to do? They already made their decision, going back on it would just create more backlash about how they cant stick to their decisions.
It's better to go back on an incorrect decision than set a precedence that will cause further issues in the future. Snowblindfrog should admit he made a mistake and apologize to GC, but the match result should stand. Its obvious he decided this without thinking of all the issues this will cause in the future, and how badly it reflects on the league. As much backlash as there would be with reversing the decision it is still the correct option to go with, and in the long run will make the league look better.
Wouldn't that set a precedence that UGC doesn't stick to their decisions? I feel like this is a lose-lose situation for the admins after deciding to have the rematch.
Regardless of all the drama, I'm just excited to see another round between these teams. Not to mention it'll be the biggest grudge match of the century. EVERYTHING IS ON THE LINE.
[quote=oov_douchebag][quote=lafaa123]At this point what would you expect UGC to do? They already made their decision, going back on it would just create more backlash about how they cant stick to their decisions.[/quote]
It's better to go back on an incorrect decision than set a precedence that will cause further issues in the future. Snowblindfrog should admit he made a mistake and apologize to GC, but the match result should stand. Its obvious he decided this without thinking of all the issues this will cause in the future, and how badly it reflects on the league. As much backlash as there would be with reversing the decision it is still the correct option to go with, and in the long run will make the league look better.[/quote]
Wouldn't that set a precedence that UGC doesn't stick to their decisions? I feel like this is a lose-lose situation for the admins after deciding to have the rematch.
Regardless of all the drama, I'm just excited to see another round between these teams. Not to mention it'll be the biggest grudge match of the century. EVERYTHING IS ON THE LINE.
snowblindfrogWe expect Platinum teams to set an example of fairness and good sportsmanship and not to force an outcome through being a rules lawyer. Would I have done this in a regular season match in Iron? Probably not. But this is the playoffs.
Last year in the UGC Asian Division my team was forced to forfeit the Semifinals on a time-based technicality (a few members of our roster came late). UGC had no problems with enforcing time-based rules to the letter then.
UGC allowed the forfeit even though it meant the other team (Anyhow Only) would proceed to the Grand Final by only playing 1 Playoff match (they had already won by forfeit in a previous Playoff match).
Even though my team were sorely disappointed, we accepted UGC's decision because it was the rules.
I know the Asian division isn't as widely followed or respected as NA Platinum., but I suggest UGC employ the same level of strictness irrespective of region.
[quote=snowblindfrog]We expect Platinum teams to set an example of fairness and good sportsmanship and not to force an outcome through being a rules lawyer. Would I have done this in a regular season match in Iron? Probably not. But this is the playoffs.[/quote]
Last year in the UGC Asian Division my team was forced to forfeit the [b]Semifinals[/b] on a time-based technicality (a few members of our roster came late). UGC had no problems with enforcing time-based rules to the letter then.
UGC allowed the forfeit even though it meant the other team (Anyhow Only) would proceed to the Grand Final by only playing 1 Playoff match (they had already won by forfeit in a previous Playoff match).
Even though my team were sorely disappointed, we accepted UGC's decision because [b]it was the rules[/b].
I know the Asian division isn't as widely followed or respected as NA Platinum., but I suggest UGC employ the same level of strictness irrespective of region.
I don't understand not allowing a ringer. We're talking about grape here, right? Who were they going to get that would be better than grape anyways? Is grape their usual starter and does he play soldier? If so, no replacement would be better imo. Therefore it seems like a choice between definitely winning (9v8) and a relatively fair (with grapes team probably at a slight disadvantage) match.
I can understand not wanting to wait forever cause people have lives, but if you don't want to wait at least let them bring somebody in.
but I know absolutely nothing about highlander, so...
nvm something about a spy
[s]I don't understand not allowing a ringer. We're talking about grape here, right? Who were they going to get that would be better than grape anyways? Is grape their usual starter and does he play soldier? If so, no replacement would be better imo. Therefore it seems like a choice between definitely winning (9v8) and a relatively fair (with grapes team probably at a slight disadvantage) match.
I can understand not wanting to wait forever cause people have lives, but if you don't want to wait at least let them bring somebody in.[/s]
but I know absolutely nothing about highlander, so...
nvm something about a spy
Andrew_LimsnowblindfrogWe expect Platinum teams to set an example of fairness and good sportsmanship and not to force an outcome through being a rules lawyer. Would I have done this in a regular season match in Iron? Probably not. But this is the playoffs.
Last year in the UGC Asian Division my team was forced to forfeit the Semifinals on a time-based technicality (a few members of our roster came late). UGC had no problems with enforcing time-based rules to the letter then.
UGC allowed the forfeit even though it meant the other team (Anyhow Only) would proceed to the Grand Final by only playing 1 Playoff match (they had already won by forfeit in a previous Playoff match).
Even though my team were sorely disappointed, we accepted UGC's decision because it was the rules.
I know the Asian division isn't as widely followed or respected as NA Platinum., but I suggest UGC employ the same level of strictness irrespective of region.
Don't make your situation sound like it's even remotely similar. You had mercs that were denied by the other team and you refused to make them leave the server and the other team took a forfeit win after you wasted 30 minutes of their time and ours.
[quote=Andrew_Lim][quote=snowblindfrog]We expect Platinum teams to set an example of fairness and good sportsmanship and not to force an outcome through being a rules lawyer. Would I have done this in a regular season match in Iron? Probably not. But this is the playoffs.[/quote]
Last year in the UGC Asian Division my team was forced to forfeit the [b]Semifinals[/b] on a time-based technicality (a few members of our roster came late). UGC had no problems with enforcing time-based rules to the letter then.
UGC allowed the forfeit even though it meant the other team (Anyhow Only) would proceed to the Grand Final by only playing 1 Playoff match (they had already won by forfeit in a previous Playoff match).
Even though my team were sorely disappointed, we accepted UGC's decision because [b]it was the rules[/b].
I know the Asian division isn't as widely followed or respected as NA Platinum., but I suggest UGC employ the same level of strictness irrespective of region.[/quote]
Don't make your situation sound like it's even remotely similar. You had mercs that were denied by the other team and you refused to make them leave the server and the other team took a forfeit win after you wasted 30 minutes of their time and ours.
The ringer they needed was for Acooma on spy, but the same thing applies. He's far and above considered the best this season and was very important to the flow of that match. Nobody would have matched up to him.
The ringer they needed was for Acooma on spy, but the same thing applies. He's far and above considered the best this season and was very important to the flow of that match. Nobody would have matched up to him.
I don't really care about the outcome of the match too much, but I do agree with the posts here about the rules needing a serious revamp. There is NO reason to have such a specific rule like "pauses may last up to 5 minutes" and then never enforce it or pretend it doesn't exist. Either put the rule in and enforce it, or remove the rule. Having all of these rules that don't actually matter just clutters, confuses, and causes problems like this. I hope ugc seriously reevaluates their current rules to at least a certain type of sensible.
also
12.2. In addition, admins may enforce map specific or general Rules at any time during the season. These Rules will be posted by the administrators on the main news page of the league. As long as these Rules are either on the news page or the Rules page, they WILL be enforced.
I don't really care about the outcome of the match too much, but I do agree with the posts here about the rules needing a serious revamp. There is NO reason to have such a specific rule like "pauses may last up to 5 minutes" and then never enforce it or pretend it doesn't exist. Either put the rule in and enforce it, or remove the rule. Having all of these rules that don't actually matter just clutters, confuses, and causes problems like this. I hope ugc seriously reevaluates their current rules to at least a certain type of sensible.
also
12.2. In addition, admins may enforce map specific or general Rules at any time during the season. These Rules will be posted by the administrators on the main news page of the league. [size=16]As long as these Rules are either on the news page or the Rules page, they WILL be enforced.[/size]
ocelot12Gentlemans club is pussyies and cant handle to lose so they go cry to their dad the ugc admins
http://i.imgur.com/oy3fj.gif
[quote=ocelot12]Gentlemans club is pussyies and cant handle to lose so they go cry to their dad the ugc admins
[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/oy3fj.gif[/img]
HueyLewisThe ringer they needed was for Acooma on spy, but the same thing applies. He's far and above considered the best this season and was very important to the flow of that match. Nobody would have matched up to him.
Lies, Arthur's spy play carried them in the 8v9.
[quote=HueyLewis]The ringer they needed was for Acooma on spy, but the same thing applies. He's far and above considered the best this season and was very important to the flow of that match. Nobody would have matched up to him.[/quote]
Lies, Arthur's spy play carried them in the 8v9.
snowblindfrogDon't make your situation sound like it's even remotely similar. You had mercs that were denied by the other team and you refused to make them leave the server and the other team took a forfeit win after you wasted 30 minutes of their time and ours.
It's all cool, snowblindfrog. My team made it to the Asian Finals this season.
We have been very careful to follow the rules this season. No drama this time in Asia.
[quote=snowblindfrog]Don't make your situation sound like it's even remotely similar. You had mercs that were denied by the other team and you refused to make them leave the server and the other team took a forfeit win after you wasted 30 minutes of their time and ours.[/quote]
It's all cool, snowblindfrog. My team made it to the Asian Finals this season.
We have been very careful to follow the rules this season. No drama this time in Asia.
5:55 PM - 20b deadbolt: so sildeezy messaged me back, he said he doesnt think the rap battle is gunna happen
5:55 PM - cozen: whY NOT
5:55 PM - 20b deadbolt: didnt ask, he immediately transitioned into asking me and someone else from 20b for an interview rofl
5:55 PM - cozen: LOL
rip
5:55 PM - 20b deadbolt: so sildeezy messaged me back, he said he doesnt think the rap battle is gunna happen
5:55 PM - cozen: whY NOT
5:55 PM - 20b deadbolt: didnt ask, he immediately transitioned into asking me and someone else from 20b for an interview rofl
5:55 PM - cozen: LOL
rip
æ. sigafoo<3: I can't rap
calvin in da zone (aka calzone): and you think cozen can?
æ. sigafoo<3: I can't rap
calvin in da zone (aka calzone): and you think cozen can?
He's just a city boy, born and raised in South Detroit.
He's just a city boy, born and raised in South Detroit.
Perhaps an admin can explain what precedence should be taken out of this situation. If my team in the next season drops a player are we allowed to take as much time as we want before starting again?
Perhaps an admin can explain what precedence should be taken out of this situation. If my team in the next season drops a player are we allowed to take as much time as we want before starting again?
I personally think that both teams were in the wrong. MF9K should of waited until Acooma rejoined the game. Acooma is a great spy, and they could of won the round. The rule of 5 minute pause is retarded. If someone needs to install a new driver or an other hardware or real life event, that could take longer than 5 minutes, it just doesn't work. Anyways, MF could of easily waited for Pulse or Acooma, but apparently ruwin left GC for some reason which I dont know about, and I suspect that might be one of the factors for that unpause
I personally think that both teams were in the wrong. MF9K should of waited until Acooma rejoined the game. Acooma is a great spy, and they could of won the round. The rule of 5 minute pause is retarded. If someone needs to install a new driver or an other hardware or real life event, that could take longer than 5 minutes, it just doesn't work. Anyways, MF could of easily waited for Pulse or Acooma, but apparently ruwin left GC for some reason which I dont know about, and I suspect that [i]might[/i] be one of the factors for that unpause
I think given the fact that there is now a real money prize pot being offered in UGC, it is very important that there be clear, logical, concise rules that are adhered to very strictly.
Black and white; no grey.
Maybe during this off-season we can find a way to involve the community or team leaders in amending or at least reviewing these rules.
I think given the fact that there is now a real money prize pot being offered in UGC, it is very important that there be clear, logical, concise rules that are adhered to very strictly.
Black and white; no grey.
Maybe during this off-season we can find a way to involve the community or team leaders in amending or at least reviewing these rules.
I'll battle both teams at once if need be
I'll battle both teams at once if need be
chimpfeet once again has another chance at 3rd place
great
chimpfeet once again has another chance at 3rd place
great
I find it weird that there was no admin watching the match that could've offered help, when the NA platinum highlander grand final is probably the most important event of all of UGC. Sure everybody has their own stuff to do but not even one admin spectating the match?
I find it weird that there was no admin watching the match that could've offered help, when the NA platinum highlander grand final is probably the most important event of all of UGC. Sure everybody has their own stuff to do but not even one admin spectating the match?
UGC needs to get its shit together. I hope for next season they review their rules and then clean them up so they don't have shit like this happening.
UGC needs to get its shit together. I hope for next season they review their rules and then clean them up so they don't have shit like this happening.
How about you stop crying about the rules and just use some common sense and show some sportsmanship. Last season in esea open finals we didn't have to wait 2 hours for seanbud to fix his client. We did anyway because it was the fair thing to do, then we still had to reschedule. We also lost the reschedule. But that's what you have to do in the finals. Nobody wants to win or lose on a technicality like that, especially in a championship game, it's just stupid and not what we play for. We play for the fun in competition.
How about you stop crying about the rules and just use some common sense and show some sportsmanship. Last season in esea open finals we didn't have to wait 2 hours for seanbud to fix his client. We did anyway because it was the fair thing to do, then we still had to reschedule. We also lost the reschedule. But that's what you have to do in the finals. Nobody wants to win or lose on a technicality like that, especially in a championship game, it's just stupid and not what we play for. We play for the fun in competition.