Justice question



  • NeelaNeela Member Posts: 62 Capable
    edited February 2019
    Maestra said:
    @Neela (post edited a second time to add this tag, else it looks like I'm arguing with Steingrim, who ninja'd me)

    No. You're completely skirting the issue of mens rhea. Do you mean means? The 'whether he thinks it's legitimate or not' is more important than you seem to want to accept if we want to decide whether somebody cheated. Do you understand that cheating can be unintentional and all it requires is dishonesty(Which not asking about an advantage you are using that has been forbidden at a previous date and the rulebook not updated to reflect is dishonest.) By definition, a cheat is somebody who acts dishonestly, and that requires a conscious decision to break the rules. Dishonesty doesn't require intent. Dishonesty can occur without intent, and he gained an advantage that other competitors discarded from that dishonesty. This instance he cheated. Dishonesty by omission is still a thing. 

    Further, let's flip it on its head: Two of your buddies considered the resolution and then discarded it as likely breaking the rules: You words, not mine. Now, again, let's damn them to the sixth hell, using your words, not mine: I used likely because I wasn't aware of the full story, having had this full story laid out now, I can see that it was almost quite certainly against the rules. At very least last year. Which would add impetus to call it cheating this year to use it without asking.

    Did they clarify it? Or did they just not do it?
    No but they also didn't gain a competitive advantage over other competitors that saw them to the finals. They shouldn't have to clarify things that are already done.

    Did they do due diligence, or did they just choose not to gain a competitive advantage that was in anyway in a grey area of the rules?
    No, because they shouldn't have had to do that due diligence. Because they weren't the ones taking an action potentially against the rules. And thus it wasn't a DUE diligence. It would come off as petty and delaying to ask.

    If there was any possible contention (which you've now admitted there was) No I have not, reread what I said, specifically this bit here, 
    If there was any possible contention it should have been clarified and asked at the start, when he agreed to the rules, which can be interpretted as forbidding the thing which he was actively using to gain an advantage over his competition.

      it should have been clarified and asked at the start, when they agreed to the rules, which can be interpretted as not forbidding the thing which they were actively not using to gain an advantage over their competition.
    By this argument, I could invent a performance enhancing drug... Or hell, let's go another way. By this argument if there was an undetected, let's say bug or other method not listed in the rules that would cause an enemy to heartstop on command. And I used it. I should be fully allowed to do so. Because it's in a "gray area" and in some interpretations of the rules should be allowed and if the competitors wanted to make sure I couldn't use my new competitive advantage to heartstop them, they'd have to ask about something they might assume would be outside the scope of the rules.

    By your own argument this is an issue of interpretation, and as such you shouldn't be using it to cast aspersions on a person's motives and character.
    I am casting no aspersions on motives or character, I am saying objectively, as in without feeling or emotion attached, looking at only the evidence and what we had at the time. They had an advantage that was disallowed by the rules. They also didn't go about ensuring they were okay to have that advantage. And thus by that omission of seeking permission acted with dishonesty. To again, secure an advantage. Intent does not matter in this instance. They cheated, objectively, and admittedly. Quibbling about the rules will not help.
  • MaekoMaeko Member Posts: 76 Capable
    I’m going to derail this thread to point out how funny it is that people are calling for JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE
  • MaestraMaestra Member Posts: 19 Novice
    Some of these leaps of logic are comical. Luckily, the godmin will decide this issue and not the vocal minority who are angry that their team lost. 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    edited February 2019
    Looks like the admin decided that their rules were not clear enough in regards to this resolution and in the sake of fairness for everyone involved chose to redo the event.

    That's pretty much the end of it. 

    As a side point to it. If people think a help file is unclear you can issue yourself or help file edit it to get it looked into. I did that for the Life rules and got them updated before the event to make sure some things were clear to everyone and what I thought was a potential advantage was clear to everyone involved.

    EDIT: posted before I saw Oraels but ya

  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    @Maestra Again, you are not here to discuss the topic and are contributing nothing to it. This wasn't about 'teams' winning or losing. If you honestly think Neela, myself, or anything on this thread is only like this because it wasn't one of our guys, that says way more about you than it does us. We're going to accept what the admin decide because there really is no alternative. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean it's going to flip-flop on a whim. I've given praise to Orael privately and publicly for standing up for what they think is right, and I'll continue to do so.

    If you're still going to have this poor attitude about those being unsatisfied, then please continue to make a fool. There are no leaps in logic being made in this thread, because all points from both sides were valid, and certainly nobody was being attacked to warrant the need to defend an individual rather than the case. Some of us argued that it should've been handled differently and others have argued that this is correct. This is part of civil discourse.
  • NeelaNeela Member Posts: 62 Capable
    Orael said:
    I understand that this is frustrating and not something that's easy to take.

    At the end of the day, the error was ours. We should have discovered it from the getgo and failed to. The fault is ours, not on Steingrim. 

    There are a few reasons for the decision to re-do the competition. 

    1) We didn't feel like it was intentional cheating and that Steingrim should be disqualified for something that was our fault.
    2) We tried to figure out how to remove the buff from Steingrim. It turns out that it was not easy and I, myself was not around until the tail end of it to attempt to remove the buff. In the time that it took to discuss/remove the buff, some of the people that Steingrim had competed against had left. 
    3) We had considered just re-doing the matches throughout the week, but that would require getting both players on with enough time to prepare, and a judge to do it with them multiple times throughout the week. We did not know if this was feasible to pull off and worried that if we were unable to get all the participants around to compete again, that would be even worse than just re-opening it up for everyone. 
    4) Because we are re-opening it up for everyone, we gave out a consolation prize to everyone who participated in Justice this last weekend. It's unfortunate because some players may not be able to make it next weekend. 

    Again, we made what we think is the best decision possible given the situation. We tried to do what is most fair to everyone. 

    I understand that not everyone is going to agree with the decision to move forward in this manner, but I think any decision we made was going to leave a section of the players unhappy with the result. The best scenario would be to have it not have occurred to begin with, but as we're past that, we're doing what we can.

    Thank you for the response and I can accept your reasoning, you are trying to make the best of a shit situation. I don't begrudge you for it. I will continue to call out what feels like bad calls when I see them however.

    Still smarts, but just... Gah. Feels so clear cut to me. You discovered in the process of play that someone had gained an advantage that wasn't allowed. And are bending over backwards to give that person a second chance. And to be clear this is a person who has admitted in this thread that they were seeking to use an unclearness in the rules(In their opinion) to gain an advantage, and that it was an intentioned and thought out action. One that had them having nearly 2000 more ego than the competition. 

    To be clear,
    Steingrim's ego stands at 14262/14262.
    Tarken's ego stands at 12420/12420.

    Both are Vernal Ascendants with 13/13 ego

    That's the difference we're talking about here. Around 2000 ego beyond what was the other competitors max cap. That's enough to withstand an extra loss or two in the debate. Which is a significant advantage.

    Even if the intention wasn't to cheat, the result is still the same. They had an advantage which they didn't clear and which wasn't clear to the greater playerbase was or wasn't allowed. This deception allowed them to win match after match. Intentional cheating or not, it was cheating, and it was by their own logic a rule unclarity that provided the opportunity. And they are being allowed to compete again.

    In context however I can understand and even appreciate the reasoning for delaying the matches now. The people having left due to lacking clarity in the situation. They deserve a chance to compete again, in a fair competition.
  • MaestraMaestra Member Posts: 19 Novice
    Well said, Neela. Respect. 
  • EstarraEstarra Administrator, Moderator Posts: 1,076 Creator
    Orael basically said everything that needed to be said, but I'd like to apologize to everyone who was impacted and take full responsibility.
Sign In or Register to comment.