'literally' every time I've ever interacted with any of them.

We used to drop teams that went over the hijacking/skill contribution limit before we polished the rule 3-ish years ago. Punishments range depending on the severity of the rule break.
Within playoffs the skill contribution/hijacking rule breaks always lead to default losses.

The fact that you're defending it in this manner really makes it seem like "We would only get a minor warning so we broke the rules to get to playoffs". Which is the overall feeling we got from this case as a whole. The default punishment is light, mainly because people mostly accidentally break the rule. Teams that do it consecutively or with clear intent get punished harsher.

have u noticed how everytime u post this it gets less funny

Yeah for me it's a bit unclear when you get a default loss and when you only get a minor warning. In my opinion teams should always get a default loss because if you only get a minor warning, teams will just accept that and have a higher skilled player play if the match is important (to carry them playoffs for example).

You can say the same thing happened in mid, but this teams only got warnings (2 major warning, so -3 points but they still made playoffs). They had to win the last game to make playoffs, so they played with 2 players that played in a higher div (http://etf2l.org/matches/75076/). And this wasn't the first time, they also broke this rule the week before (http://etf2l.org/matches/74934/).

I don't understand why Surstromming got a default loss while this team only got warnings. The last game is pretty similar to LR vs Surstromming, because it was the last game to decide who's going to playoffs, and both teams used higher skilled players to get the win. At least it's pretty clear in my eyes that if you give teams warnings they can just tank them and not care.

x

http://etf2l.org/matches/74049/

I can understand now why you get that feeling but if that decision is based on what we typed in game it's taking our words way out of context, we believed you could play with someone 2 divs above, when they then say "Swi can't play scout since he played prem" we, at least I, took that as a "Swi isn't allowed to play because he was in prem" (which is why I in all caps also write about it being 2/2 points, I was wrong in this case about the rule but it wasn't like we planned to get carried and we would rather have played with mid medic mercs, but they got denied.) we were still very focused on the fact that they told us in steam chat that "we're denying all your mercs because you didn't wanna reschedule" (mind you that no default date was set and we agreed to play on one of their days that they had offered us to choose from)
the "try to default" comment was a passive aggressive thing I said since I consider forcing a team to play 5v6 is default hunting.

I didn't think we'd be getting a warning in the first place but later on when I reread the rule realized that it would've been a minor warning, at this point I had already agreed to switch to scout.
The point still stands though that they continued playing when given the option to restart if they felt it was unfair.

omG i CAnt coNtain my XDDDDD

don't you have your own demos to review instead Doughy?

Menty resigns as admin and everything goes to hell...

menty sonnyblack canfo the more germans leave the admin team zhe worse it gets - change my mind

iv never understood why there isn't a default merc system in 6s... is there a reason? cus most people at some point have been fucked over by some lil rats who wanna snake a win

The merc rules are a bit wierd, because a denied merc can be allowed to play simply by joining the roster in question. To me it's a clear case of trying to have it both ways: Both to allow people to deny mercs they think are unfair and to allow for a sort of default merc (=subs). These are not compatible for the reasons stated, and etf2l ought to move to either deny ANYONE not on the main roster, OR allow for a default merc.

While we are on the topic of etf2l rules, I think there's an argument to be made to pin mishappenings on individuals as well as teams. For instance, any team can get 2 minor warnings without their score being affected, and as long as it cannot be proven that there is an ill intent, they can do it intentionally. If I want to screw with my opponents in a week 7 official I can fake being retarded, and breaking a couple of rules to mess with my opponents, or even do it earlier, but as long as it's not proven to be intentional it's only a minor warning. I'd say combine it with previous offences of individuals, to prevent this.

[I made a lot of assumptions please do correct me if I'm wrong about anything]

Hello, a little word from the admin in question here who took the initial request by LR made on our discord. I'll help clarify some things.

As clearly shown here Surstromming was or could have been fully aware of the fact that playing with swi could have consequences.

This is simply not true, neutronas' official request on discord was made before the game started. I responded to the request after the match had already begun and explained to him that Surstromming was indeed breaking a rule playing with swi. After that I discussed with the other admins the best course of action going forward seeing the circumstances furthermore, I already had the information provided to me stated in quote #1. I made clear our decision to him while the first map was under way still. As neutronas didn't immediately I supposed he was to busy playing the game. After the game the results were submitted as per usual and we didn't hear back from him. It's at this point the admin team made the decision we made, in no way were we influenced by anyone on team LR.

I don't know where this line got lost in translation, I never stated "unless you don't feel the need to" but rather 'unless they don't feel the need to'. However I do agree on the second point you make, at that moment communication between me and bloodis could have been better but wouldn't have changed anything about the rulling in this case.

I put bold on it if you don't see

I stopped trusting etf2l since the dark day of the detonator targeted-at-one-person-which-is-me ban

I don't understand why people do this, you get literally 0 reason to big yourself up as a good team if you only make playoffs due to some stupid shit. It's so petty because you don't even get anything for winning div2, let alone just making playoffs. In the end you're still probably both going to have to be submitting screenshots to get in div 1 so you're achieving essentially nothing?

why isnt sheepy admin yet

This would never have happened if moist was head admin.

shh or they will ban the banners...

The only thing I can think of is that a merc in 6s can have a higher impact than a merc in highlander cause there are less players in 6s. Sure in this case a medic won't make much of a difference, but if you can get a scout from a team on top of the table it can make a huge difference (when you are in the middle for example). And the opponents can't do anything about it.

literally what does that mean

I've honestly wanted a default merc rule in 6s for years at this point. It can be the same as HL where the person can't have played in a higher div than they would be mercing for, so no prem or div 1 players in mid, and no aids 5v6 games or scrambling to find anyone at all that can play because bad players won't let you have an open player play your div 2 game. It may rely on admin discretion but as long as it doesn't end up taking up loads of their time I'd say it'd be worth.

Can't comment on the last however many years it is, but it was initially only put in place for highlander because of the higher number of players and higher chance of players being missing (scheduling in hl is much harder since there are 6 more players involved). For 6s teams were expected to be better at scheduling games and having a full 6 players. Not defending the rule itself just giving some context on the origins of it.

just a troll post that seems to work

.