War #10 - General Discussion

[worldwideweb3]

This discussion basically shows me which people care about having fun and which people care about enforcing strict rules as much as possible. Why do any of you even care if Kae helps serprex? He can do whatever he wants and nobody can stop him. He could say "I was joking", and none of you could possibly prove that Kae even exists.

He was sincere about the whole situation, but apparently, sincerity has to be punished.

*+1. Inb4 serp comes and says he was joking just to troll us further.

[Jenkar]

While the discussion surely helps, i believe the matter is more in WMs hand and should in future cases always stay there, because that's what allows for a maximum of flexibility.

Thing is, the issue involves more stuff than just war. So I think we need admin ruling on forum rules about sharing a forum account (accounting for cases like Higs stated about members with deleted accounts).

And if shared accounts are allowed (Which seems to be the truth by the current version of forum rules) how is serp's case anything beyond that?

Individual events can have their individual rules. If Higs/anti/UTA/community feels this needs a community wide guideline, sure, but... Welp :V i'm of the feeling that this is one of the the things that *should* be left to the organizer(s) to decide.

[Higurashi]

I respectfully dissent (not that my opinion has any weight, granted) from your ruling.

The rational opinion of all members carry weight, even if we do need someone to make the final call.

Since the rules were made with the definition of a player being a person, nothing is being changed. It was already the case. What I'm fixing is just the semantic ambiguity.

This is the current ruleset. As a matter of principle, we don't tend to change rules in the middle of an event unless there's a big loophole. That said, as I mentioned before, I'm also inclined to open the rules up for the next event.

While the discussion surely helps, i believe the matter is more in WMs hand and should in future cases always stay there, because that's what allows for a maximum of flexibility.

Thing is, the issue involves more stuff than just war. So I think we need admin ruling on forum rules about sharing a forum account (accounting for cases like Higs stated about members with deleted accounts).

And if shared accounts are allowed (Which seems to be the truth by the current version of forum rules) how is serp's case anything beyond that?

Though it can be the same thing, sharing a forum account isn't the same thing as sharing War information. Sharing a forum account is allowed, but the War rules do not allow for sharing information with people outside of your team. That said,

He was sincere about the whole situation, but apparently, sincerity has to be punished.

it's up to the WM's if they wish to punish or not. According to the rules, they have a reason to, but it's their decision. Just like how it's their decision, along with the Admins', to consider a rule change. We're discussing the rules because there's no decision reached, not because we want to punish anyone.

[iancudorinmarian]

It does sound to me like you want to punish someone though.

[Higurashi]

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would not punish serp or his team. I do wish to clarify the rules, however.

[ARTHANASIOS]

This discussion basically shows me which people care about having fun and which people care about enforcing strict rules as much as possible. Why do any of you even care if Kae helps serprex? He can do whatever he wants and nobody can stop him. He could say "I was joking", and none of you could possibly prove that Kae even exists.

He was sincere about the whole situation, but apparently, sincerity has to be punished.

Some people have fun by enforcing strict rules as much as possible.
Joking aside, personally, I've never suggested to punish the person, but the team instead.
Oh, and I am going to hack you, ian, and see all your decks, because that's the way some people (me!) have fun and you can not prove anything...
Exaggerating once again...

[worldwideweb3]

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would not punish serp or his team. I do wish to clarify the rules, however.

Me gusta.

[andretimpa]

The main problem I see with such a rule is how it would be enforceable. As someone said, if serp had never told us we'd never know.

Though it would be nice to have it in place so that the honest players would know to follow it.

[Aves]

I respectfully dissent (not that my opinion has any weight, granted) from your ruling.

The rational opinion of all members carry weight, even if we do need someone to make the final call.

Since the rules were made with the definition of a player being a person, nothing is being changed. It was already the case. What I'm fixing is just the semantic ambiguity.

If person = player, then the rules are less clear, not more. Let's say there's 6 people in the tournament room, and at the last minute before the tourney must be rescheduled, Afdadonky enters the tournament room. Afdadonky is a shared account between two people, who we'll nickname Afda1 and Afda2. By equating persons to players, we now have 8 players in the tournament room, but only 7 accounts. Is the tournament rescheduled, or are there enough "players?" Are Afda1 and Afda2 separate players? If Aves is an account shared between a middle school class of 16, can Aves face Aves 8+4+2+1 times by themselves in the same tournament? Can Aves play Aves in a PvP League match? It makes less sense to me to have player equaling person than player equaling account. Again, the alternative is that you are explicitly banning all shared-accounts from PvP.

[Solaris]

I mean, personally, I wouldn't allow the account sharing in the first place (not sure about the other TO's). Too much of an integrity concern for me to be able to comfortably allow it.

[kaempfer13]

I respectfully dissent (not that my opinion has any weight, granted) from your ruling.

The rational opinion of all members carry weight, even if we do need someone to make the final call.

Since the rules were made with the definition of a player being a person, nothing is being changed. It was already the case. What I'm fixing is just the semantic ambiguity.

If person = player, then the rules are less clear, not more. Let's say there's 6 people in the tournament room, and at the last minute before the tourney must be rescheduled, Afdadonky enters the tournament room. Afdadonky is a shared account between two people, who we'll nickname Afda1 and Afda2. By equating persons to players, we now have 8 players in the tournament room, but only 7 accounts. Is the tournament rescheduled, or are there enough "players?" Are Afda1 and Afda2 separate players? If Aves is an account shared between a middle school class of 16, can Aves face Aves 8+4+2+1 times by themselves in the same tournament? Can Aves play Aves in a PvP League match? It makes less sense to me to have player equaling person than player equaling account. Again, the alternative is that you are explicitly banning all shared-accounts from PvP.

I think what higs wants to do is to establish a rule in which for each PVP-event only a single person is allowed to use an account (that has been registered as taking part in the event) to participate in that event (technically the same account may still be used by a completely different person for another event). Of course it's impossible to keep track of that. I'd like it best, if there was a fixed amount of brainpower each account can maximally use to create the fairest odds, but obviously enforcing such a rule is totally absurd.
So more realistically, I want it so that any person who has a fair share of experience in the game gained with an EtG-account of their own should not be allowed to help someone in a team they are not part of.

[Jenkar]

The main problem I see with such a rule is how it would be enforceable. As someone said, if serp had never told us we'd never know.

Though it would be nice to have it in place so that the honest players would know to follow it.

They are ways to cheat already with little ability for rules to be enforceable against, so yeah :V