Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game

Elements the Game => War => Events and Competitions => War Archive => Topic started by: mathman101 on July 22, 2016, 05:42:26 am

Title: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: mathman101 on July 22, 2016, 05:42:26 am
War #10 - General Discussion



Have a comment or question about current proceedings in War? Feel free to post them here.

This thread is not meant for feedback, but for discussion between organizers, participants, and onlookers.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 25, 2016, 05:04:12 pm
The current dates seem to be too soon not for me only. I would miss this War, Afdarent would miss most of Vault building and R1 also. Please reconsider.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on July 25, 2016, 05:09:12 pm
Where did the WMs put the list of the Generals? (my suggestion is in Announcements)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on July 25, 2016, 05:29:25 pm
The current dates seem to be too soon not for me only. I would miss this War, Afdarent would miss most of Vault building and R1 also. Please reconsider.
What delay are you considering?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 25, 2016, 05:31:52 pm
What delay are you considering?

Auction start 15th of september. Before, there are still summer holidays and I won't be there at all.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on July 25, 2016, 05:36:29 pm
What delay are you considering?

Auction start 15th of september. Before, there are still summer holidays and I won't be there at all.
The main issue with that is that most of the people my age around here start uni shortly after that.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Fippe94 on July 25, 2016, 05:43:24 pm
Yeah, I'd guess more people will be availible now, *during* the summer holidays.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 25, 2016, 05:54:21 pm
Considering the length of War, it will go into Uni period anyway.

Summer holidays are usually the time when people travel.

Clarifying while I'm unfortunately being selfishly annoying here:

15th to 27th of August I'll be in Germany, hardly ever online at all.

28th of August - 5th of September I'll be working extensively and quite probably try to sleep what little time I'll have left.

6th to 12th of September I'll be in Italy, not even sure my laptop will be with me.

Also adding that War has always started after summer, why the hell change?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on July 25, 2016, 06:17:25 pm
Where did the WMs put the list of the Generals? (my suggestion is in Announcements)

Usually there is a roster topic. I assume it will be the same this time, and WM's are probably waiting for fire gen to be confirmed.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Blacksmith on July 25, 2016, 08:00:33 pm
Regarding the dates. I have no problems whatsoever with moving the date to the usual war start time. And I don't think lots of either people would have problems with that either!
Or at least extending the auction or vault building to a time where all generals can be active.

Where did the WMs put the list of the Generals? (my suggestion is in Announcements)

Usually there is a roster topic. I assume it will be the same this time, and WM's are probably waiting for fire gen to be confirmed.
In the meantime you can have a look at this unofficial General list. Master of light and fire still needs to be added.
(http://i.imgur.com/K4gPutZ.png)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: rob77dp on July 25, 2016, 08:34:11 pm
Regarding the dates. I have no problems whatsoever with moving the date to the usual war start time. And I don't think lots of either people would have problems with that either!
Or at least extending the auction or vault building.
Where did the WMs put the list of the Generals? (my suggestion is in Announcements)

Usually there is a roster topic. I assume it will be the same this time, and WM's are probably waiting for fire gen to be confirmed.
In the meantime you can have a look at this unofficial General list. Master of light and fire still needs to be added.
(http://i.imgur.com/K4gPutZ.png)

Basically, this. I would add that extending the actual event start time without delaying the application period starting risks fringe applicants being more and more likely to desert or abandon their post/team early/mid-event. :(
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Afdarenty on July 27, 2016, 05:07:58 pm
Suddenly realised I forgot to post this publicly.

I will have zero computer access from 20th August to 4th September.

I've talked to the WMs about this. Assuming things keep to the current schedule I'll miss all but the first day of vault building, and the deck building phase of Round 1.

I'll post a fully functional vault, with reasoning on cards that are there and cards that are missing, as well as thoughts on all Round 1 match ups and decks I think will do well. I'm more than happy for Team Air to make any changes they feel like when I'm away, either to the vault or to the Round 1 decks. I'll be here as much as possible on the first day of vault building to talk stuff over.

If anyone isn't comfortable with this situation then please tell me, so I know not to bid on you.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Blacksmith on July 28, 2016, 09:07:45 pm
Regarding the dates. I have no problems whatsoever with moving the date to the usual war start time. And I don't think lots of either people would have problems with that either!
Or at least extending the auction or vault building.
Where did the WMs put the list of the Generals? (my suggestion is in Announcements)

Usually there is a roster topic. I assume it will be the same this time, and WM's are probably waiting for fire gen to be confirmed.
In the meantime you can have a look at this unofficial General list. Master of light and fire still needs to be added.
(http://i.imgur.com/K4gPutZ.png)

Basically, this. I would add that extending the actual event start time without delaying the application period starting risks fringe applicants being more and more likely to desert or abandon their post/team early/mid-event. :(
I get your point. But like to add that war has become shorter. I my second and third war which lasted from august-february. Last war didn't even last to january and started the same month. So time wise it has already become shorter and more effective.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 29, 2016, 01:37:43 am
Officially announcing that Discord will be leading Team :light this coming War.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: deuce22 on July 29, 2016, 10:45:29 pm
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't there normally a "War is Coming" thread in Forum News and Announcements?

There may be some who are not aware that war apps are now open...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Blacksmith on July 30, 2016, 07:56:52 am
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't there normally a "War is Coming" thread in Forum News and Announcements?

There may be some who are not aware that war apps are now open...
I don't know. But soon enough it will be announced in the newsletter.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ddevans96 on July 30, 2016, 06:44:19 pm
A 'War is Coming' topic would draw significantly more attention to war than a small section of the newsletter would.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Blacksmith on July 30, 2016, 07:34:38 pm
A 'War is Coming' topic would draw significantly more attention to war than a small section of the newsletter would.
Better make sure it's big then. I can take care of that. But I agree that such topic would be good as well.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Linkcat on July 31, 2016, 02:57:02 am
(https://gyazo.com/0fcfe6db89e9d1de4ea068185a784239.png)



(https://gyazo.com/9e961a5f74fc868c507bc2a120bb55dc.png)

(https://gyazo.com/34359d49504148d96a49a775c403d617.png)

(https://gyazo.com/b0725ea5a95c8ce8de2ce8d7105b52b4.png)

inthisroom clearly has no respect for his title or the element of Light. Are we really going to let this happen?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: RootRanger on July 31, 2016, 03:08:05 am
I believe there is precedent for having council select a general, when necessary. Considering how many players have added Light as a banned Element in the wake of inthisroom's decision, I think council or the WMs should look into the matter.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 31, 2016, 03:16:26 am
I'm still the master of :light here, I have made no farewell post on these forums.

I appointed Discord because I thought she'd make a good job and show enthusiasm, she won't do a Worse job than anyone else I could have appointed, current masters of other elements included, this is a chance for her to prove herself.

Anyone who thinks they'd been better for this job or is in a position to judge my decision just show their own self-importance.

I will do whatever I can to prevent anyone from challenging or changing my choice.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Manuel on July 31, 2016, 03:24:24 am
can someone pls make a tl;dr for those who don't live in chat?

i don't understand why everyone banned light as element, so idk if u should ban light to or put it into my fav

explain things pls
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Solaris on July 31, 2016, 03:27:39 am
can someone pls make a tl;dr for those who don't live in chat?

i don't understand why everyone banned light as element, so idk if u should ban light to or put it into my fav

explain things pls
I, a longstanding Light fan, as well as Trials runnerup, was passed by as an option for Light General, and instead someone who has no prior association with Light was selected, in an IMO, less than classy fashion. As such, people believe I was done an injusticd/disrespected, and banned Light.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ddevans96 on July 31, 2016, 03:30:45 am
Less biased answer: As Master, inthisroom can either be General in War, or someone else can be chosen, either by the Master in question or by Council. The timeframe of war doesn't mesh with inthisroom's schedule, and as such he appointed Discord as General. People are taking issue with this, and in some cases banning Light, because:

1) They believe other candidates (namely Solaris) are more worthy, and are using their ban as a form of protest
2) They believe Discord is simply not worthy, or would not make a good general, and thus are using their ban
3) They believe inthisroom's action were malicious and against the spirit of war
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: dawn to dusk on July 31, 2016, 03:33:45 am
I feel like the name of this thread is ironic now
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Hyroen on July 31, 2016, 03:37:23 am
I feel like the name of this thread is ironic now
So much win. +rep.

Questioning a Master's decision for General? Read the rules.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 31, 2016, 03:44:11 am
Again, I do not even understand the discussion.

I made my choice as to who should replace me, a person I deem worthy, I did this choice with full knowledge that some people were lacking respect for this person, I didn't however believe it would get as far as to start a hate campaign on these forums.

I've seen a lot of masters here, many of them less dedicated than the one I appointed to replace me.

Discord is passionate and enthusiastic about this game, whatever some who believe that they are better than others here may think, I struggled every time I had to face her in pvp and she's very active, I don't know who else I could have appointed.

Now I understand that many here would have liked to see someone else leading Light, but your personal favours don't determine Masters, fortunately.

I set my trust on those who didn't ban Light to support my choice and prove everyone wrong with a successful War.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: DoubleCapitals on July 31, 2016, 04:19:58 am
I guess we shall see. Let the true war begin. We'll be waiting.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xGocUH8RYoDKKs/giphy.gif)

I feel like the name of this thread is ironic now

Not ironic really. Apt.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 31, 2016, 05:22:18 am
Also, to further explain my choice.

I have offered this position to two people, two people I knew to be controversial but who had also a long history of affection to this game, and trial experience. In spite of my annoyance of being deprived of War by the seemingly random decision to change its dates, I have never asked Dm to put up a "Mafia persona" for Generalship, I have no idea where this idea is coming from. I asked him because I thought he'd be dedicated enough to do so, on top of being controversial. Just as I know Discord to be, she has, however, shown just as much dedication and affection as Dm has in recent years and I still stand to my choices, in spite of what anyone who would have liked to be Light Master in my place might think.

I now invite everyone to stop giving the new :light General shit and have good War, each on their own side, as it is supposed to be.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: hainkarga on July 31, 2016, 11:31:54 am
While it is ok to criticise any decision made by anyone, it shouldn't go too far.  Everything in moderation, including moderation. A master has the right to choose any general he/she wants and i do believe both inthisroom and discord have good intentions. Good luck to Discord and team light.

Ps: Everyone banning light was unnecessary. I banned it too because Discord's options had become too narrow increasing the chances i would be picked. Unlike some previous wars, i have precise choice of teams this war.

Ps2:
I, a longstanding Light fan, as well as Trials runnerup, was passed by as an option for Light General, and instead someone who has no prior association with Light was selected, in an IMO, less than classy fashion. As such, people believe I was done an injusticd/disrespected, and banned Light.

Isn't someone a bit full of himself ? Get over it. Maybe this gif could help.

(http://i.imgur.com/y1Rz7Sr.gif)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Solaris on July 31, 2016, 11:58:52 am

Ps2:
I, a longstanding Light fan, as well as Trials runnerup, was passed by as an option for Light General, and instead someone who has no prior association with Light was selected, in an IMO, less than classy fashion. As such, people believe I was done an injusticd/disrespected, and banned Light.

Isn't someone a bit full of himself ? Get over it. Maybe this gif could help.

(http://i.imgur.com/y1Rz7Sr.gif)
Apparently my head is too far up my own ass to be able to see the :light, so I banned it ;)

Apparently I misunderstood why people banned Light. My bad.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Vangelios on July 31, 2016, 12:09:22 pm
poor light, have bad moments in war/trials lately, last place and now the sad thing happens...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 31, 2016, 02:21:16 pm
poor light, have bad moments in war/trials lately, last place and now the sad thing happens...

The sad thing is WMs changing the dates and nature of War as it had always been.

I'm pretty sure making it an autumn event as usual would not only have resulted in more Masters being able to participate, but also very probably in having more applicants as quite a few potential ones must be on vacation right now.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Vangelios on July 31, 2016, 02:44:48 pm
poor light, have bad moments in war/trials lately, last place and now the sad thing happens...

The sad thing is WMs changing the dates and nature of War as it had always been.

I'm pretty sure making it an autumn event as usual would not only have resulted in more Masters being able to participate, but also very probably in having more applicants as quite a few potential ones must be on vacation right now.
I'm saying that this happens with light (especially light) that don't have a good moment,
the great advantage is that worse thing than this, not expected to occur (I hope)

your problem with schedule is normal, don't is the first master with this problem in wars
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: DoubleCapitals on July 31, 2016, 03:45:55 pm
While it is ok to criticise any decision made by anyone, it shouldn't go too far.  Everything in moderation, including moderation. A master has the right to choose any general he/she wants and i do believe both inthisroom and discord have good intentions. Good luck to Discord and team light.

Ps: Everyone banning light was unnecessary. I banned it too because Discord's options had become too narrow increasing the chances i would be picked. Unlike some previous wars, i have precise choice of teams this war.

Ps2:
I, a longstanding Light fan, as well as Trials runnerup, was passed by as an option for Light General, and instead someone who has no prior association with Light was selected, in an IMO, less than classy fashion. As such, people believe I was done an injusticd/disrespected, and banned Light.

Isn't someone a bit full of himself ? Get over it. Maybe this gif could help.

(http://i.imgur.com/y1Rz7Sr.gif)

Let's see. I'll try to be as objective as possible.

a) Everyone is full of themselves ya know? Like I'm 100% DC, you're 100% hain, etc.

b) Talked a tad to others. People be banning light not because of any supposed "disrespect".  Rather it's because they think she's not going to be a good general. Relevant, perhaps. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/trial-of-entropy/10th-trials-phase-3-community-vote-62074/msg1234425/#msg1234425) Amongst other things, chat hasn't been speaking of nice things lately. But you'll have to ask others for their opinion on that too. I'm not the only one though.

c) Ironically banning Light has become increasingly necessary for all those participants who are like "oh I'm fine with anyone but preferably not light pls" and as more people get banned the more they could be drafted, you see. Then again the ideal situation is no one having these bans, but people aren't taking risks it seems.

d)
poor light, have bad moments in war/trials lately, last place and now the sad thing happens...

The sad thing is WMs changing the dates and nature of War as it had always been.

I'm pretty sure making it an autumn event as usual would not only have resulted in more Masters me being able to participate, but also very probably in having more applicants as quite a few potential ones must be on vacation right now.

FTFY
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Odii Odsen on July 31, 2016, 04:06:24 pm
Is there any reason why war is starting earlier than usually?

From what I heard, inthisroom and Afdarenty both have a problem with the earlier time schedule.
Also, some soldiers would like to see the war starting later like DoubleCapitals and RavingRabbid.

Of course, war should start whenever WM's have enough (free)time for this event, but is it possible to postpone the event? Two or three weeks maybe?
I will be probably on holiday during vault building phase and just can show up from time to time. Just can speak for myself, maybe other ppl like the earlier beginning of war.
Probably a poll can help here ...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: DoubleCapitals on July 31, 2016, 04:18:34 pm
Is there any reason why war is starting earlier than usually?

From what I heard, inthisroom and Afdarenty both have a problem with the earlier time schedule.
Also, some soldiers would like to see the war starting later like DoubleCapitals and RavingRabbid.

Of course, war should start whenever WM's have enough (free)time for this event, but is it possible to postpone the event? Two or three weeks maybe?
I will be probably on holiday during vault building phase and just can show up from time to time. Just can speak for myself, maybe other ppl like the earlier beginning of war.
Probably a poll can help here ...

Nah, when I said "me", I was referring to itr. That's why it's in this quote. I honestly don't care about the date personally, although a later war will clash with my exams and stuff (it'll actually be worse off than me, but it's just me)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: hainkarga on July 31, 2016, 04:53:58 pm
a poll can help here ...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on July 31, 2016, 04:55:47 pm
I would suggest leaving it as it is. It is impossible to find a time that fits everyone. Furthermore, the hype will likely die down and applicants will probably decrease.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Solaris on July 31, 2016, 09:19:14 pm
Delaying the event will only be detrimental, IMO. People sign up because they're available in -that- timeframe. I think we have a case of vocal minority in terms of setting back the time, here.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: hainkarga on July 31, 2016, 09:25:33 pm
I would guess most people, like me, doesn't care when this starts. The more people available the merrier.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Linkcat on July 31, 2016, 11:32:45 pm
Information relevant to what I posted before has been sent to Council and Warmasters.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Dm on July 31, 2016, 11:47:24 pm
Sol is apt.
Sol is the logical choice.
We all know this.

This does not mean he's the only choice.

This outrage about Discord is because Sol is what we all perceive as "clearly" a better choice.

Here's the kicker:

Might ITR have picked Discord knowing she would be a terrible general, or truly believing that she would be a good general, yet worse than Sol, but picking her because he knew people would stir drama about it? Or further, does he think Sol would be a better general than Discord?

The only person who can answer this is ITR, and ITR has answered with the fact he believes Discord has dedication and would be a practical choice towards this - a better pick than Solaris.

Whether he chose her for these reasons indeed, or chose her because she's bad and hope she flops, or chose her for drama, or even, chose her just to spite Solaris and the community can all be true. Yes, ITR can be lying and picking Discord to spite people and thinking she's a bad choice. But the only one who can aswer this is ITR, and ITR in this thread was very clear. But what he said is in this thread, and he chose Discord. Even if it's a pick out of spite, he still claims that he believes Discord to be a good choice.

Any further complaints about his choice is not a question of what ITR thinks, because for all arguments, what ITR thinks was already stated.

Anyone who keeps complaining about this choice thinks Discord is inapt to lead Light and is a bad choice by ITR which should not be approved.

Which is entirely fine. Just make sure to know what you're arguing for when you start this drama up or partake in it.

That is all.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: inthisroom on July 31, 2016, 11:58:45 pm
I've stated my reasons for picking Discord or wanting to pick Dm several times.

I'm kind of fed up with a few self appointed justice warriors trying to decide who will lead team Light because my reasons to appoint my successor don't please them.

Yes, I am pissed off that the War dates have been changed. Yes, I wanted to pick a controversial master.

But I also offered this position to two people who I thought are dedicated to this game, besides being controversial.

Your judgement about my choice only shows your self-importance and your contempt for certain forum members, I have no respect for you.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Dm on August 01, 2016, 12:02:35 am
The question here is whether anyone thinks controversial picks should be punished because they stir up drama.

Do you truly believe appointing someone ITR has stated to believe would be a good general - even if picked also due to being controversial - is grounds to changing his decision?

That's the thing here.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: deuce22 on August 01, 2016, 12:39:31 am
I left before appointing a general last war. That was worse imo. I think people just need to get over this shit.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on August 01, 2016, 12:51:22 am
The dispute is more about 'why' it was done.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Dm on August 01, 2016, 01:00:02 am
The dispute is more about 'why' it was done.

It's been said in the thread like six times by now, what are you talking about.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on August 01, 2016, 07:25:50 am
The dispute is more about 'why' it was done.

It's been said in the thread like six times by now, what are you talking about.

Sorry, let me rephrase that... the ISSUE is 'why/how' it was done.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on August 01, 2016, 08:39:56 am
The dispute is more about 'why' it was done.

It's been said in the thread like six times by now, what are you talking about.

Sorry, let me rephrase that... the ISSUE is 'why/how' it was done.
Masters (already) have not that many possibilities to direct how their element shines in the community. Removing some of those would be bad, IMO.
Itr deciding on Discord was his choice, presumably in the best interests of :light.

If (you think/it shows, in the future) that it wasn't in the best interests of :light, you have next trials to comment on that.
If you're in auction, and really don't want to serve under Discord, then there are bans. And by the way, that's what bans are for, not "Oh look a bandwagon! Let's jump on it!"
Otherwise, you're just stirring up the drama flames, and as fun as it is to eat popcorn watching the drama unfold, it's getting a bit boring. :V
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on August 01, 2016, 03:10:06 pm
The issue that was being discussed here... I never said I had any problem with it either way...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on August 01, 2016, 05:40:05 pm
The issue that was being discussed here... I never said I had any problem with it either way...
Oh. My apology for supposing it, then. :V
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on August 03, 2016, 02:56:58 pm
Can we have war schedule posted somewhere? probably in announcements
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: mathman101 on August 05, 2016, 01:11:16 am
Can we have war schedule posted somewhere? probably in announcements

I said I would do this yesterday, but kinda passed out a little earlier than planned  ;D


Will this work for you? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-10-announcements/msg1240037/#msg1240037)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on August 14, 2016, 04:07:00 pm
Yall need to learn how to become spreadsheet gurus.
In deck cost calculator F6:F66 (market prices spreadsheet), you need to replace the formula with =if(F3="","",vlookup(F3,CalcRef!$A1:$G471,7,false))
As you are doing it right now you're looking for the type of card instead of the element. :D
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: serprex on September 26, 2016, 03:22:11 am
Apparently WMs are actually having to discuss this conversation that came up in chat, so I figure we might as well have a public general discussion. WMs haven't actually asked me anything as of yet. I'd prefer this to be an open discussion
Quote
[2016-09-25 14:42:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: [Entropy Upgrades] dark ripper 3-0 ARTHAN... from serprex. Save this for bedtime reading.
[2016-09-25 14:42:35] worldwideweb3: ‹@serprex› kae = kaemp?
[2016-09-25 14:43:10] serprex: ‹@worldwideweb3› kae = most wealthiest oetg player
[2016-09-25 14:44:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Elements Mafia 63 - by skyironsword from fabian771. Is this the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning?
[2016-09-25 14:44:28] worldwideweb3: whats the etg name
[2016-09-25 14:45:36] serprex: Doesn't have an etg account
[2016-09-25 14:45:55] Fippe94: that's pretty amusing
[2016-09-25 14:46:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Elements Mafia 63 - by skyironsword from skyironsword. It's not a mystery.
[2016-09-25 14:46:03] worldwideweb3: how did he call it then?
[2016-09-25 14:46:12] Fippe94: that the wealthiest oetg player doesn't have an etg account
[2016-09-25 14:46:24] Fippe94: ‹@worldwideweb3› it's serp's girlfriend
[2016-09-25 14:46:42] worldwideweb3: oh
[2016-09-25 14:46:44] Discord: ‹@ji412jo› jijooooooo
[2016-09-25 14:46:52] ji412jo: discooo
[2016-09-25 14:46:58] worldwideweb3: not fair! they got an extra player :sillyspin:
[2016-09-25 14:47:08] Discord: ‹@ji412jo› terr?
[2016-09-25 14:47:35] Fippe94: yeah serp is totally cheating
[2016-09-25 14:47:59] serprex: She even builds some of the decks
[2016-09-25 14:48:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Elements Mafia 63 - by skyironsword from worldwideweb3. Wow, they're still around?
[2016-09-25 14:48:04] serprex: Like the air domin vs Water last round
[2016-09-25 14:48:12] Fippe94: cheating
[2016-09-25 14:48:28] Discord: ‹@Skotadi_Phobos› skoooooo
[2016-09-25 14:49:03] serprex: Need a WM in here to give Light a 200 card penalty, free us from this event
[2016-09-25 14:49:24] fabian771: ‹@serprex› The hell
[2016-09-25 14:49:26] Discord: ‹@serprex› wat
[2016-09-25 14:49:29] Discord: why
[2016-09-25 14:49:32] TheonlyrealBeef: Fire first! :silly:
[2016-09-25 14:49:43] worldwideweb3: ‹@Discord› you have a nice team....
[2016-09-25 14:49:47] serprex: ‹@Discord› because cheating
[2016-09-25 14:50:13] Discord: ‹@serprex› just because someone's giving us deck ideas?
[2016-09-25 14:50:15] Discord: o_O
[2016-09-25 14:51:25] iancudorinmarian: ‹@Discord› That is actually cheating.
[2016-09-25 14:51:27] TheonlyrealBeef: I remember that being a huge issue in some previous war: a member with access to all the stuff acting as an extra player.
[2016-09-25 14:51:58] Discord: ‹@serprex› what have we done
[2016-09-25 14:51:58] Fippe94: tbf, in the context of 'War' you could count kae as an extension of serprex
[2016-09-25 14:52:13] Fippe94: I mean, it's not like she's gonna help anyone else
[2016-09-25 14:52:20] Fippe94: ever
[2016-09-25 14:52:31] iancudorinmarian: ‹@mrpaper› Poke me when you come back.
[2016-09-25 14:52:46] worldwideweb3: lwl
[2016-09-25 14:52:48] worldwideweb3: lel
[2016-09-25 14:52:58] Fippe94: found a rule though: "A player caught telling team secrets to anyone outside their own team will face consequences decided on a case-by-case basis, possibly including being permanently banned from all Elements community PvP Events."
[2016-09-25 14:53:07] fabian771: Can somebopdy tell me how am I supposed to register in OEtG? I can't find the supposed "fields"
[2016-09-25 14:53:13] fabian771: somebody*
[2016-09-25 14:53:15] Fippe94: going strictly by the rules, serp is breaking this
[2016-09-25 14:53:20] worldwideweb3: ‹@Fippe94› but kae doesnt even have etg account :P
[2016-09-25 14:53:23] mrpaper: ‹@iancudorinmarian› im back
[2016-09-25 14:53:30] Fippe94: ‹@worldwideweb3› irrelevant
[2016-09-25 14:53:34] Fippe94: the rules state "anyone"
[2016-09-25 14:53:38] worldwideweb3: also, maybe he didnt tell team secrett...
[2016-09-25 14:53:47] iancudorinmarian: ‹@mrpaper› Ok, tell me what's your available times.
[2016-09-25 14:53:59] worldwideweb3: recommending a deck aint cheating
[2016-09-25 14:54:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: answers from ElementalDearWatson. Can you find Waldo?
[2016-09-25 14:54:09] Fippe94: is kae knows what decks light is playing, that is definintely a team secret
[2016-09-25 14:54:16] worldwideweb3: like, in casual chat, we ourselves say shouuld have played this against them
[2016-09-25 14:54:41] TheonlyrealBeef: If you can build a deck for a team, you know something about their vault, too.
[2016-09-25 14:54:56] Fippe94: (note: I don't *actually* think serp or Light should be punished for this)
[2016-09-25 14:55:04] Discord: ‹@Fippe94› ask serp
[2016-09-25 14:55:16] worldwideweb3: also, we dont have any proof that serp gave vault info, so yh
[2016-09-25 14:55:30] worldwideweb3: nothing to go on there, no evidence, so nothing anyone can do :P
[2016-09-25 14:55:37] Fippe94: pretty sure serp will confess if asked :P
[2016-09-25 14:55:43] Fippe94: ‹@serprex› ping
[2016-09-25 14:56:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Elements Mafia 63 - by skyironsword from rob77dp. FIRST!
[2016-09-25 14:56:11] mrpaper: ‹@iancudorinmarian› from now and the next 8-9 hrs... And last minute tomorrow
[2016-09-25 14:56:11] Fippe94: ‹@fabian771› ust type desired username and password and click login
[2016-09-25 14:56:18] Fippe94: just*
[2016-09-25 14:56:30] Fippe94: ‹@fabian771› the user will be created if it does not exist
[2016-09-25 14:56:43] fabian771: ...
[2016-09-25 14:56:46] fabian771: Oh snap
[2016-09-25 14:56:56] iancudorinmarian: ‹@mrpaper› Okay, then I'll wait for like 5 hours, and if aaronk doesn't show up, I'll sub. Is that okay with you?
[2016-09-25 14:57:06] fabian771: I've got to reassemble my mind over what password I've put
[2016-09-25 14:59:01] mrpaper: ‹@iancudorinmarian› sure but he wont.. he is having à football party later today.. hé is supposed to be preparing it now.. since 2hrs alrdy
[2016-09-25 15:00:06] iancudorinmarian: ‹@mrpaper› nah, 5 PM GMT is in 1 hour.
[2016-09-25 15:00:27] worldwideweb3: ‹@iancudorinmarian› actually, no
[2016-09-25 15:00:29] worldwideweb3: in 2 ohurs
[2016-09-25 15:00:30] worldwideweb3: hours
[2016-09-25 15:00:34] TheonlyrealBeef: in 2 hours indeed
[2016-09-25 15:00:52] iancudorinmarian: Ah, right, still in daylight saving time.
[2016-09-25 15:01:30] Lunaris: Good morning chat
[2016-09-25 15:02:22] worldwideweb3: anyone wanna play leagues?
[2016-09-25 15:03:12] serprex: Kae was given vault info, how else could she build decks?
[2016-09-25 15:03:29] serprex: Still no vagman so dishes
[2016-09-25 15:03:36] worldwideweb3: -.- stop digging a hole for yourself
[2016-09-25 15:03:42] Discord: we're screwed
[2016-09-25 15:04:54] mrpaper: ‹@iancudorinmarian› oh. Well in 2 hrs i'll be around!
[2016-09-25 15:05:05] Fippe94: on the other hand
[2016-09-25 15:05:17] Fippe94: note that the rule also state: "consequences decided on a case-by-case basis"
[2016-09-25 15:05:24] Fippe94: so I think you're fine
[2016-09-25 15:06:10] Fippe94: I'm *pretty* sure that WMs don't mind that a RL friend takes a look and helps a little
[2016-09-25 15:06:18] Fippe94: as long as you don't stretch it to some extreme
[2016-09-25 15:06:20] TheonlyrealBeef: Yeah, like the difference between being eliminated retro-actively or just starting now :silly:
[2016-09-25 15:06:52] Fippe94: also important to note is of course that kae does not have a forum account, or even game account
[2016-09-25 15:08:00] iancudorinmarian: Ban serprex!
[2016-09-25 15:08:08] iancudorinmarian: :awesome:
[2016-09-25 15:08:41] Lunaris: I won't be around until later today
[2016-09-25 15:09:07] Lunaris: So wishing you all good luck in war matches and such
[2016-09-25 15:09:19] Lunaris: Byebye~
[2016-09-25 15:09:54] worldwideweb3: cya
[2016-09-25 15:10:14] worldwideweb3: i wanna see how many transmutations people did...
[2016-09-25 15:10:27] worldwideweb3: physs said he was waiting on math to tell him so he can update relics...
[2016-09-25 15:10:38] worldwideweb3: ‹@Afdarenty› how many transmutations did you guys do?
[2016-09-25 15:10:58] Afdarenty: One? Or two? Not many
[2016-09-25 15:11:08] worldwideweb3: ah ok
[2016-09-25 15:11:39] worldwideweb3: was kinda scared that you guys may go all out and do 12 transmutations :P
[2016-09-25 15:11:40] serprex: We did 1
[2016-09-25 15:11:57] Afdarenty: I like cards more than upgrades
[2016-09-25 15:11:58] serprex: Air likes upgrades, it'd make sense
[2016-09-25 15:12:45] Afdarenty: If we had anything useful to transmute to I'd go for it. You guys just don't beat us enough :P
[2016-09-25 15:13:33] dracomageat: ‹@iancudorinmarian› it's called british summer time over here
[2016-09-25 15:13:42] dracomageat: the initials are quite fitting
[2016-09-25 15:14:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Elements Mafia 63 - by skyironsword from Solaris. This is my favorite!
[2016-09-25 15:15:10] Ryli: "Summer"time
[2016-09-25 15:15:45] ji412jo: anyone knows how the game analysis works on lichess?
[2016-09-25 15:17:29] Aves: ‹@Ryli› It's september 25, that's autumn
[2016-09-25 15:17:46] Aves: /me can't read.
[2016-09-25 15:20:41] dracomageat: ‹@Ryli› hey, it's kinda summer here
[2016-09-25 15:20:51] dracomageat: as summer as it ever was atleast
[2016-09-25 15:21:08] dracomageat: not that that stops stores selling christmas stuff
[2016-09-25 15:21:12] Basman-1453: Well, it's only _very early_ autumn for you northerners~
[2016-09-25 15:21:28] Solaris: someone explain me how somebody helping Light is anything but illegal
[2016-09-25 15:21:45] ji412jo: ‹@Solaris› it's light.
[2016-09-25 15:21:49] Basman-1453: ‹@dracomageat› lel. To think that I ran into shops selling Christmas trees despite it was still November or so (keep in mind that my locality had a Muslim majority)
[2016-09-25 15:21:57] worldwideweb3: just shut up sol and go away, looking to give everyone penalties :/
[2016-09-25 15:22:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Code Crash - by fabian771 from Ryli. I'd walk a mile for this post.
[2016-09-25 15:22:10] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› no, this is actually bullshit
[2016-09-25 15:22:28] worldwideweb3: im sure we all have said at some point "they should have played that"
[2016-09-25 15:22:39] worldwideweb3: thats also "cheating"
[2016-09-25 15:22:45] dracomageat: ‹@Basman-1453› my city isn't all that muslim but my immediate vacinity is all muslims and students apart from my family
[2016-09-25 15:23:01] Solaris: yes, but they have a 6th person doing it actively during deckbuilding phase
[2016-09-25 15:23:08] Basman-1453: ‹@dracomageat› Wow, that's pretty surprising :O
[2016-09-25 15:23:17] worldwideweb3: it doesnt change anything
[2016-09-25 15:23:34] worldwideweb3: if you say "you should have played that", its also helping
[2016-09-25 15:23:48] dracomageat: it's a strange area in that regard
[2016-09-25 15:24:00] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› if you say it de facto, nobody cares
[2016-09-25 15:24:23] worldwideweb3: and if someone who doesnt even play etg says it, it matters all that much?
[2016-09-25 15:24:36] dracomageat: ‹@Solaris› go hire some deckbuilding help of your own
[2016-09-25 15:24:56] ji412jo: ‹@worldwideweb3› if we say ''they should have played that'' it's not knowing whether they actually can, since we do not know their vaults
[2016-09-25 15:24:56] Solaris: but it's the fact that someone that isnt Team Light or a WM has access to Team Light's vault
[2016-09-25 15:25:02] ji412jo: having a 6th player is actually knowing secrets.
[2016-09-25 15:25:21] worldwideweb3: idk if they have access or not
[2016-09-25 15:25:42] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› how could they build decks if they didnt have access
[2016-09-25 15:25:53] ji412jo: but well i do not want to enter this argument.
[2016-09-25 15:25:56] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› not build, but recommend
[2016-09-25 15:26:12] worldwideweb3: just like we recommend without knowing their vaults
[2016-09-25 15:26:23] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› [11:03:12] ‹serprex› Kae was given vault info, how else could she build decks?
[2016-09-25 15:26:55] Discord: doesn't mean she has access\
[2016-09-25 15:26:59] worldwideweb3: maybe serp was just joking about~
[2016-09-25 15:27:11] worldwideweb3: also given vault info is different to access, yes
[2016-09-25 15:27:11] iancudorinmarian: Light is getting pretty rekt anyway. Also, considering it's actually a RL friend, there's not much one can do.
[2016-09-25 15:27:21] worldwideweb3: i could say team air has 15 damsels at least
[2016-09-25 15:27:35] Discord: ‹@worldwideweb3› or more :P
[2016-09-25 15:27:44] worldwideweb3: proabbly 24 :P
[2016-09-25 15:27:45] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› thats not given vault info, thats literally just an estimate
[2016-09-25 15:27:52] worldwideweb3: seeing as they didnt lose that much
[2016-09-25 15:28:08] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› vault access =/= vault info
[2016-09-25 15:28:09] Discord: ‹@Solaris› it's air, they obvs have damsels
[2016-09-25 15:28:10] Basman-1453: Guesstimate, at best. Not actually supported by data :P
[2016-09-25 15:28:16] worldwideweb3: so its fine either way
[2016-09-25 15:29:03] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› vault info is literally just as good as access, since it's all the totals from the vault
[2016-09-25 15:29:11] worldwideweb3: do we just wanna find ways to give people penalty?
[2016-09-25 15:29:38] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› you cant prove kae had access, so rip
[2016-09-25 15:29:50] Ryli: ‹@Solaris› Raise the issue with the warmasters, they'll make the decision.
[2016-09-25 15:30:16] Discord: or say, "we have this card" then said person knows that we have that card and can build accordingly, yes?
[2016-09-25 15:30:34] Solaris: ‹@Discord› that is vault info, which is private...
[2016-09-25 15:30:46] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› you have vault info on us
[2016-09-25 15:30:51] worldwideweb3: you know we have bws in our vault
[2016-09-25 15:31:00] Discord: doesn't mean she has access
[2016-09-25 15:31:11] worldwideweb3: teams collect vault info as war goes on
[2016-09-25 15:31:15] worldwideweb3: info =/= access
[2016-09-25 15:31:39] serprex: Light's vault is probably more secure than most teams
[2016-09-25 15:31:52] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› difference between witnessing a card being used and info being relayed
[2016-09-25 15:31:54] serprex: I restricted access to only members + wms + kae
[2016-09-25 15:32:03] serprex: Whereas with other teams anyone with the link has access
[2016-09-25 15:32:04] serprex: ie higs
[2016-09-25 15:32:35] Solaris: ‹@serprex› so you're saying that Kae has acess to vault, like Disc was trying to argue she didnt?
[2016-09-25 15:32:38] Fippe94: serp is just digging his own grave lol
[2016-09-25 15:33:02] Solaris: you guys are sketchy as shit and I'm pming wms lol
[2016-09-25 15:33:04] Fippe94: regardless, this is a RL frend with no forum or game account
[2016-09-25 15:33:05] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› also means WMs knew about it and were fine with it
[2016-09-25 15:33:09] Fippe94: It's fine
[2016-09-25 15:33:20] worldwideweb3: also, your own team member is saying its fine
[2016-09-25 15:33:21] Solaris: ‹@Fippe94› how is it fine?
[2016-09-25 15:33:35] serprex: Also it's not just a RL friend
[2016-09-25 15:33:38] Fippe94: how it not fine
[2016-09-25 15:33:42] serprex: Kae lives with me, her computer is right beside me
[2016-09-25 15:33:45] iancudorinmarian: I told WMs to make my vault private, got no reply.
[2016-09-25 15:33:49] serprex: So I'm literally sitting with her building decks
[2016-09-25 15:33:51] iancudorinmarian: ;-;
[2016-09-25 15:33:57] serprex: ‹@iancudorinmarian› I didn't have to ask
[2016-09-25 15:34:03] Fippe94: how is it not fine*
[2016-09-25 15:34:09] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› if your brother comes along while you were vaulting, you should get penalty?
[2016-09-25 15:34:17] iancudorinmarian: ‹@serprex› wat
[2016-09-25 15:34:19] worldwideweb3: ^just an example
[2016-09-25 15:34:22] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› he also knows nil about the game
[2016-09-25 15:34:36] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› kae doesnt play etg either
[2016-09-25 15:34:59] serprex: She was suggesting we play more pacify
[2016-09-25 15:35:01] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› its self evident that Kae knows about the game, if she's building decks
[2016-09-25 15:35:40] Solaris: also, it was previously mentioned that she played oEtG.. game knowledge from there is easily transferrable to etg
[2016-09-25 15:35:52] Ryli: Don't allow people to play if they have a relative or partner who understands how card games work?
[2016-09-25 15:35:56] Discord: ‹@Solaris› [11:34:59] ‹serprex› She was suggesting we play more pacify
[2016-09-25 15:36:00] Discord: ^lol
[2016-09-25 15:36:01] Fippe94: ‹@iancudorinmarian› as far as I can tell, anyone can change edit restrictions on their own vault
[2016-09-25 15:37:17] iancudorinmarian: ‹@Fippe94› ...I didn't realize that before.
[2016-09-25 15:37:34] Fippe94: can't remove war masters from being able to edit though :P
[2016-09-25 15:37:55] Solaris: ‹@Fippe94› darn, we cant annex war then
[2016-09-25 15:39:00] Basman-1453: alimaghribi.tumblr.com/post/63006751787/troll...
[2016-09-25 15:43:00] Fippe94: ‹@Solaris› What if your brother did know about the game though
[2016-09-25 15:43:10] Fippe94: and gave you some suggestions
[2016-09-25 15:43:37] Solaris: ‹@Fippe94› I'd tell him to fuck off like I normally do
[2016-09-25 15:44:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: (Aether Upgraded) Vangelios 3 - 1 Sera (... from deuce22. Yeup.
[2016-09-25 15:44:07] Solaris: there's also a difference there though
[2016-09-25 15:44:31] Solaris: in Kae's case, its pretty apparent that her feedback and help was requested/condoned
[2016-09-25 15:45:08] Afdarenty: lol, I bet you are, deuce
[2016-09-25 15:45:12] Solaris: in my brother's hypothetical case, it's not, and i'd probably just call him a ninny and ignore his suggestion anyways
[2016-09-25 15:45:58] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› light ignored kaes suggestion too
[2016-09-25 15:46:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: answers from ARTHANASIOS. I found Wally.
[2016-09-25 15:46:01] worldwideweb3: thats why they lost
[2016-09-25 15:46:13] ji412jo: War without nymphs?
[2016-09-25 15:46:16] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› uhh no lol
[2016-09-25 15:46:20] ji412jo: I think the only element that gets heavily punished is air
[2016-09-25 15:46:33] Discord: ‹@Solaris› how would you know? You're not in team light.
[2016-09-25 15:46:33] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› well, yes, if you read the entro match ^^
[2016-09-25 15:46:56] Solaris: ‹@Discord› maybe I am ;)
[2016-09-25 15:47:05] Discord: ‹@Solaris› No,
[2016-09-25 15:47:12] Discord: Shoo, pesky life thing
[2016-09-25 15:47:56] Solaris: ‹@worldwideweb3› elementscommunity.org/forum/round-4-249/(entr... > seems as if they went with her read on :life matchup
[2016-09-25 15:48:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: (Aether Upgraded) Vangelios 3 - 1 Sera (... from ARTHANASIOS. It's a good read.
[2016-09-25 15:48:28] worldwideweb3: oh thats why you are salty
[2016-09-25 15:48:39] Discord: lol just cos she called it doesn't mean she made the deck for it
[2016-09-25 15:48:42] worldwideweb3: just cause you lost to them, makes sense
[2016-09-25 15:48:57] Afdarenty: ‹@ji412jo› Air gets hit hardest. But also Earth, Death, Water, Light, Time
[2016-09-25 15:49:32] worldwideweb3: if in chat, someone says something like "entro gonna play bows next round like always)
[2016-09-25 15:49:38] worldwideweb3: and they are right
[2016-09-25 15:49:42] worldwideweb3: penalty for them?
[2016-09-25 15:49:47] Aves: ian played 3 grabbows in a row, so...
[2016-09-25 15:49:52] Aves: xD
[2016-09-25 15:50:04] worldwideweb3: yh, i always say entro gonna play grabbow~
[2016-09-25 15:50:05] Solaris: there's an obvious difference here and I'm fairly certain you know it
[2016-09-25 15:50:12] worldwideweb3: cal probably has a bow too
[2016-09-25 15:50:13] iancudorinmarian: You're not allowed to predict my grabbows.
[2016-09-25 15:50:24] iancudorinmarian: Penalty for :gravity
[2016-09-25 15:50:29] Basman-1453: That one's guesstimate at best.
[2016-09-25 15:50:31] worldwideweb3: there is no difference, you are making too much out of it
[2016-09-25 15:50:46] Aves: Is Time allowed to predict your grabbows? Precognition
[2016-09-25 15:50:47] worldwideweb3: ‹@Basman-1453› kae was guesstimating life's deck too...
[2016-09-25 15:51:12] Afdarenty: ‹@worldwideweb3› Where would you draw the line, then?
[2016-09-25 15:51:47] worldwideweb3: ‹@Afdarenty› if you find someone in RL to help you, thats fine idc much
[2016-09-25 15:52:09] worldwideweb3: so if you wanna ask your siblings, parents about match against gravity, go for it :P
[2016-09-25 15:52:14] Basman-1453: "entro gonna play bows next round like always) (sic) is just too vague to make out of anyway
[2016-09-25 15:52:18] worldwideweb3: and i would be overly pleased if you listen to them :D
[2016-09-25 15:52:59] Afdarenty: Rapid and chrispy are brothers. How'd you feel if chrispy didn't bother joining the auction but just helped whichever team Rapid ended up on?
[2016-09-25 15:53:04] Ryli: ‹@worldwideweb3› You say that, but I'm sure my roommate could come up with a fair deck if I explained the game to him. :P
[2016-09-25 15:53:11] Afdarenty: I don't really want to get involved here, just curious where you stand on all this
[2016-09-25 15:53:12] serprex: I didn't think Life would play Light/Life vs us because 'that'd be stupid'
[2016-09-25 15:53:14] serprex: But they did
[2016-09-25 15:53:49] serprex: Fire/Light as to have good chances vs Frogtal & Fire/Life
[2016-09-25 15:54:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: (Air Upgrades) trashduke 3 - 1 rob77dp (D... from ARTHANASIOS. Good to the last word.
[2016-09-25 15:54:03] worldwideweb3: ‹@Afdarenty› fine by me, tbh. its his choice, not as if we can prevent that anyways
[2016-09-25 15:54:17] mythologyrules: -falls in-
[2016-09-25 15:54:19] Fippe94: ‹@Afdarenty› I would not like that
[2016-09-25 15:54:27] Lunaris: Hey myth
[2016-09-25 15:54:37] Solaris: ‹@Afdarenty I'm sure we know my stance on that
[2016-09-25 15:54:47] Fippe94: but kae doesn't have a forum account, so it's not the same thing
[2016-09-25 15:55:01] Aves: I don't think it's something we can prevent, at the very least, so I'm not sure there would be a poitn.
[2016-09-25 15:55:03] Aves: point*
[2016-09-25 15:55:14] worldwideweb3: ^
[2016-09-25 15:55:32] Aves: The "don't share vault with anybody" is more for the team's security than for preventing outside aid
[2016-09-25 15:55:42] Solaris: ‹@Aves› not really a matter of prevention, but I do think matters should be taken because it's happening
[2016-09-25 15:55:47] mythologyrules: hello Luna
[2016-09-25 15:55:48] worldwideweb3: indeed what aves said
[2016-09-25 15:55:56] Solaris: ‹@Aves› regardless, its still in the rules, and its not being followed
[2016-09-25 15:55:58] worldwideweb3: ‹@Solaris› prove its happening.
[2016-09-25 15:56:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: I have played this game for a week and al... from Monox D. I-Fly. Really?
[2016-09-25 15:56:19] serprex: ‹@Solaris› prove it without relying on my honesty
[2016-09-25 15:56:27] worldwideweb3: ^
[2016-09-25 15:56:44] Solaris: fuckit, I'll go grab someone I know from IRL who plays EtG
[2016-09-25 15:56:48] Fippe94: lol
[2016-09-25 15:56:53] worldwideweb3: go ahead~
[2016-09-25 15:56:59] Solaris: since it's all SO ok
[2016-09-25 15:56:59] Fippe94: ‹@Solaris› does he have a forum account?
[2016-09-25 15:57:06] worldwideweb3: if they are as good as you, we have no problem :sillyspin:
[2016-09-25 15:57:10] Solaris: ‹@Fippe94› nope
[2016-09-25 15:57:13] Afdarenty: Why does having a forum account matter, exactly?
[2016-09-25 15:57:14] Aves: If my room mate plays elements, and I say to him, 'hey, life is so annoying with firestall' it doesn't really make a significant difference.
[2016-09-25 15:57:18] serprex: Life gonna become #1 team with this mystery 6th member
[2016-09-25 15:57:38] Fippe94: ‹@Afdarenty› mostly so that they cannot be in war or auction themselves
[2016-09-25 15:57:41] serprex: ‹@Afdarenty› because if they don't have a forum account they're not really a member of the community
[2016-09-25 15:58:01] AveragePotato: The latest forum post is Re: Hello! from ARTHANASIOS. Don't tell them I said that.
[2016-09-25 15:58:30] serprex: Fun fact: my account is actually kae's
[2016-09-25 15:58:33] serprex: Since we share her kong account
[2016-09-25 15:58:35] Aves: ‹@serprex› It would be different if you were, say, on a game design equivalent of stack overflow and asking for help there, but I think there is a clear difference in the cases
[2016-09-25 15:59:03] Afdarenty: Haha, this is a fun issue
[2016-09-25 15:59:40] worldwideweb3: ‹@Afdarenty› so, can i expect your family to make a deck for next round aganist us? :D
[2016-09-25 15:59:48] iancudorinmarian: There's two ways of handling this: 200 cards penalty for :light or ignore this and continue :sillyspin:

Later chat has me talking with www3 about testing decks with Kae. She stopped me from losing to Aether too (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/round-3-248/serprex-discard-light-3-0-mrpaper-salvage-aether-63055/msg1245088/#msg1245088)

I'll leave my own opinions out of analysis for now

I live with a girl who grasps etg, AMA
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ddevans96 on September 26, 2016, 03:44:50 am
For what it's worth, War 1's Team Light had an extra person, never specified who, with access to the vault and they got told off hard by Scaredgirl - basically, if she had known about it or if it happened again, there would be massive penalties.

I don't know if this should be considered the same situation but it is the closest event I can think of.

The reason I think this should be explicitly against the rules is because otherwise a general can make an agreement with a player that they sit out of auction and assist that team as an extra member, which circumvents the entire auction.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:22:08 am
With an extra forum member, clearly, that would be wrong.

On the other hand, somebody pointing out "hey, don't play two supernovae in the same turn" or "entropy's used a lot of grabbows" or "nightmare counters fractal, you dummy," or "you forgot to make a mono" while looking over your shoulder isn't significant. I think it'd be hard to write a reasonable rule barring general common knowledge, especially with regards to regulating people who aren't even part of our community. Otherwise, I welcome the day when we say something along the lines of "thou must command thy Elements in secrete by yonder darke wood neath the silent embrace of blessed Lunaris upon the sixth bell."
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Solaris on September 26, 2016, 06:04:05 am
Question to anyone who may read, regarding this situation:

Would you be comfortable that this, without a doubt, is 100% acceptable in the context of War, in your own team?

Would you permit it if you caught wind that this was occuring in your team?

I sure wouldn't.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ddevans96 on September 26, 2016, 06:14:07 am
With an extra forum member, clearly, that would be wrong.

On the other hand, somebody pointing out "hey, don't play two supernovae in the same turn" or "entropy's used a lot of grabbows" or "nightmare counters fractal, you dummy," or "you forgot to make a mono" while looking over your shoulder isn't significant. I think it'd be hard to write a reasonable rule barring general common knowledge, especially with regards to regulating people who aren't even part of our community. Otherwise, I welcome the day when we say something along the lines of "thou must command thy Elements in secrete by yonder darke wood neath the silent embrace of blessed Lunaris upon the sixth bell."

I agree with your last paragraph. However, it does seem that there is more than just the examples you gave. To me, these are the important lines:

[2016-09-25 14:47:59] serprex: She even builds some of the decks
[2016-09-25 14:48:04] serprex: Like the air domin vs Water last round
[2016-09-25 15:03:12] serprex: Kae was given vault info, how else could she build decks?
[2016-09-25 15:31:54] serprex: I restricted access to only members + wms + kae

And then from the rules: 'A player caught telling team secrets to anyone outside their own team will face consequences decided on a case-by-case basis'

To me, I think the argument should be how much of a competitive advantage was gained, not whether there was one - by these four quotes, Light appears to have an extra person effectively acting like an extra team member, in that they are building decks and actively given exclusive vault access. Even if WMs decide the appropriate punishment is zero, I think an investigation would be appreciated by many as in the best interests of the spirit of war.

Would you be comfortable that this, without a doubt, is 100% acceptable in the context of War, in your own team?

Would you permit it if you caught wind that this was occuring in your team?

This would not have been permitted on any team I was General of, and no General I was playing under allowing such would continue to have my support.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: serprex on September 26, 2016, 11:15:37 am
NB that the air domin wasn't entirely built, we were both tinkering with it to quanta balance, fit in creatures, etc

Slept, so posting my opinion:

In a way this is how I've been doing most things for years. We draft Hearthstone decks together, debate going face together, do chess.com tactic puzzles together, design oetg together. We're a computational unit. If this is deemed inappropriate then I'd request I be ejected from Team Light & banned from future wars regardless of whether there's a penalty or not. I'm not going to pick etg over Kae, which not including her would be doing

If you're privately disapproving, please speak up like ddevans (Thanks for your input, btw. Have always enjoyed our level headed disagreement). Currently the only person who's shown clear disapproval besides ddevans is Solaris, who I feel has ulterior motives & an overblown morality
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on September 26, 2016, 12:03:20 pm
Well, for the topic of extra members outside the team collaborating, I looked hard but could not explicitly see it forbidden in this wars rules. Perhaps it is considered obvious, regardless: it should be clear that the team hasn't gained a significant advantage from it. Ideally, 5 team members actively working together is plentiful and having more is only a liability and extra effort without sufficient gain meaning no penalty is needed.

We're not living in an ideal world and one could almost argue that outside help usually isn't beneficial unless not all members in the team are pulling their weight. Which from what I've gathered in my experience over the wars is becoming commonplace. Regardless -and next remark will be for all rulings in general- ruling should be consistent, hopefully following either specific rules or general guidelines. If these have not changed then the penalty for a considered infraction should not be changed, either.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on September 26, 2016, 12:07:05 pm
I've kept thinking about this, and even though at first I also was a bit on the disagreeing side, I have to say that I'm fine with that happening.

Why? Because there's no way any of us could've known without you, serprex, letting us know about it. I appreciate the sincerity and imo there's no need for any action to be taken against that. If ya'll want you can invite 10 friends over to your house to help you building war decks, I couldn't care less.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: mrpaper on September 26, 2016, 12:30:05 pm
I don't think it is worth a penalty whatsoever either.. that said, it sure is a weird situation and I guess saying nothing about it in the general chat would have been more appropriate to avoid drama.  We are talking about someone totally outside the community so she can't be evaluated at all... but what if the almighty Zeru (for those old enough to remember him) was to come back from the dead and help team entropy without being in war?  Would that still be called ok?  A team of 5 is of course enough to make deck choices... but a great extra 6th could be nice to some while unfair to others.  So I think maybe there needs to be a ruling put in place for later in this war /other wars.  I would suggest something as simple as... asking help or accepting help from community member outside the team is forbidden and can lead to a minor penalty.  Which would mean no problem from having someone at home helping you out as long as it is not someone from the forums as well.

Would this seems fair?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ddevans96 on September 26, 2016, 12:48:31 pm
Regardless of what's done with this situation, I agree with mrpaper - I definitely think some rulings, including this one regarding outside help, need to be set in stone for future wars.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on September 26, 2016, 12:52:48 pm
Imagine if kae only ever played PvE elements, never joined the forum, and nobody knew who she was, but she was still as skillful. Would it be wrong for serp to include her in his thought processes then?
I do think you need rules to guard against auction avoiding, but it's a case by case basis, and tbh in this case you can't stop people who are in a relationship from sharing their thoughts.

Kae doesn't win anything if light win war.
Kae has no access to other teams vaults or thoughts.
Sure, it's an extra head, but you can't enforce against asking advice, or listening to it, from someone who is physically in the same room, nay, the same house.
If you share an interest with your significant other, you discuss that interest.
Serp is just lucky his significant other is good, my fiancee just calls me a nerd when I ask her about her opinion of brave chrysaora.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Zawadx on September 26, 2016, 01:11:44 pm
We should clearly state how much any community member should be able to help another team, be they in war or otherwise. Maybe itr could meet up with Odii and tell him, 'Light uses stall decks. You should counter with a break!' But would that be considered helping Team Gravity? What if he hands Odii the secret plans he'd given Disco to use in war? Discord isn't guaranteed to use them, so should it count?
What if I publicly state aether's strengths and weaknesses, hoping to help the remaining 11 teams and ensure Aether doesn't win. Aether can counter it perhaps, but I'm still offering the other teams an unfair advantage. Should it count?

As for Kae+serp, like serp said they are a unit. You could even argue that both Kae and Serp are using the serprex account on forums (a practice called a Hydra). Since Hydras aren't banned by forum rules, one could involve their significant other, or even their entire town as long as those people don't break forum rules and create their own account.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 02:27:51 pm
2.1. SECRET FORUM SECTION
Each team has a hidden subboard visible only to its members, Warmasters and non-participating Administrators. All discussions held here MUST be kept secret. A player caught telling team secrets to anyone outside their own team will face consequences decided on a case-by-case basis, possibly including being permanently banned from all Elements community PvP Events. Please don't publicly talk about anything that goes on in these boards.

I am team :light myself and I absolutely respect and love and admire Serprex and all his hard work. However, according to the above ruling, I strongly believe that we deserve a punishment as a team and the fact it hasn't had a big impact is irrelevant, as well as the fact that Serprex told us, or that it is his girlfriend, or that the rest of team Light was inactive or whatever etc.

Let's get real. If team :aether was doing exactly the same thing, the whole community would've been in flames and you guys know it (just an example). We must be fair and having a punishment for team :light is the only fair thing in this case.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 02:36:07 pm
I'm with no penalty for light. We should appreciate honesty rather than penalise it. WMs can't prove serp asked kae without serp saying.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 02:36:21 pm
The wording of the rule implies that it's more for the protection of the team than it is for preventing cheating. You could interpret it in a way that is absolutely fine with serp and kae. As Zawa states, if we treat kae and serp as a hydra, then on the forum they only count as one entity, hence one member of the team. Hence, it's not 'outside the team' in a way that significantly affects War. On that last sentence, another word that should be bolded is "publicly" -- clearly, serp isn't going to iancu saying "hey, here's what we're using against entropy this round." That sort of situation is what the rule is trying to prevent, much more so than the situation we're talking about now. Talking about the game in the privacy of your own home is about as private as it gets. Playing EtG shouldn't necessitate cutting off your family and irl friends.

No penalty needed.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 02:54:16 pm
I'm with no penalty for light. We should appreciate honesty rather than penalise it. WMs can't prove serp asked kae without serp saying.

Example: Honestly, I killed a person. I admit it. Thus, my years to jail will be reduced. However, will my punishment become zero?

The wording of the rule implies that it's more for the protection of the team than it is for preventing cheating. You could interpret it in a way that is absolutely fine with serp and kae. As Zawa states, if we treat kae and serp as a hydra, then on the forum they only count as one entity, hence one member of the team. Hence, it's not 'outside the team' in a way that significantly affects War. On that last sentence, another word that should be bolded is "publicly" -- clearly, serp isn't going to iancu saying "hey, here's what we're using against entropy this round." That sort of situation is what the rule is trying to prevent, much more so than the situation we're talking about now. Talking about the game in the privacy of your own home is about as private as it gets. Playing EtG shouldn't necessitate cutting off your family and irl friends.

No penalty needed.

I am really surprised that everyone is ok with Hydras. For me, 1 person = 1 account and neither 1 person = X accounts nor X persons = 1 account feels fair for me. Just my 2 :electrum
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 02:57:10 pm
I'm with no penalty for light. We should appreciate honesty rather than penalise it. WMs can't prove serp asked kae without serp saying.

Example: Honestly, I killed a person. I admit it. Thus, my years to jail will be reduced. However, will my punishment become zero?


Killing is a crime. Also, don't you see how much you are exaggerating....
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 03:45:47 pm
Killing is a crime. Also, don't you see how much you are exaggerating....
I agree it is a completely exaggerative example, but true nonetheless. Reduced punishment has a HUGE gap with no punishment at all. I am :light and I hate being penalized, but leaving us completely unscratched can only lead to more of the same "mistakes" in the future imho.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 03:47:00 pm
Let's get real. If team :aether was doing exactly the same thing, the whole community would've been in flames and you guys know it
This convo did get me thinking. For the sake of argument, let's say I was single again and started dating a member of Team Aether, or just moved in as a roommate with one of them. I'd make myself Warblind, and then it'd be okay for me to start helping Team Aether? I can outright promise you that round 3 would've looked better for them with me "on" the team.

This is more or less the same argument as Zeru "joining" Team Entropy. Is it okay to have an outsider just because they're not part of the community? Someone who isn't formally on a team doesn't gain anything from that team winning either, forum member or not.

I don't want to stop serp from participating, but the rules were designed with this in mind (I was a part of the designing and approving procedure). There's no ambiguity in this part:
"A player caught telling team secrets to anyone outside their own team will face consequences decided on a case-by-case basis, possibly including being permanently banned from all Elements community PvP Events."

All that said, I am not adamantly against a change of this rule. There is an argument for being allowed to share your hobby with your family and friends; we're all here to have fun after all. However, such a change would apply for future wars. Not the current one.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 03:48:10 pm
Let's get real. If team :aether was doing exactly the same thing, the whole community would've been in flames and you guys know it
This convo did get me thinking. For the sake of argument, let's say I was single again and started dating a member of Team Aether, or just moved in as a roommate with one of them. I'd make myself Warblind, and then it'd be okay for me to start helping Team Aether? I can outright promise you that round 3 would've looked better for them with me "on" the team.

This is more or less the same argument as Zeru "joining" Team Entropy. Is it okay to have an outsider just because they're not part of the community? Someone who isn't formally on a team doesn't gain anything from that team winning either, forum member or not.

I don't want to stop serp from participating, but the rules were designed with this in mind. There's no ambiguity in this part:
"A player caught telling team secrets to anyone outside their own team will face consequences decided on a case-by-case basis, possibly including being permanently banned from all Elements community PvP Events."

All that said, I am not adamantly against a change of this rule. There is an argument for being allowed to share your hobby with your family and friends; we're all here to have fun after all. However, such a change would apply for future wars. Not the current one.

 "case by case basis" says that theres no strict ruling in place
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 03:49:19 pm
That applies to the consequences. It's still clear that it is against the rules.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 03:58:20 pm
You and Zeru are part of the community, even if in Zeru's case he's been gone for years. While you joining aether would certainly be analogous to Zeru and entropy, they're clearly different from the case of serpex, which involves two people acting as one entity. Growing up, my best friend and I shared a runescape account. We drifted apart, but if we hadn't then I could easily see a situation wherein "Aves" would be two people. I think it's a dangerous precedent to set if you make people choose between family and the game.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:03:16 pm
And why is it different? As I said, neither outside member gains anything from the team winning besides the fact that they want their significant other to win something.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:10:53 pm
Disclaimer: Obviously, I'm not as familiar with the rules as Higs is. But here's my take on it:

A team has five members. I argue that one member is on a strict one to one ratio with forum accounts. One forum account is not on a strict one to one relationship with one person; one forum account may have one or more people. However, it IS a rule that one person may only have access to one forum account. Therefore, so long as each person in the shared forum account does not have access to more than one forum account, it should not be considered as breaking the rules. You joining aether by sharing, say, hainkarga's account would break the rules because you would have access to two forum accounts. However, serp and Kae sharing the account "serprex" is not against the rules as each person in serprex can only access serprex, and no other accounts.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:13:41 pm
So I decide to leave the community one day and remove my account. Now it's okay?

The rules have no exceptions, and that's deliberate.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:16:40 pm
If you mean, you having access to aether's vault silently, then that would be a case of team aether using six members, as there are six separate forum account entities with access to team aether's vault.

Hmm, is account deletion actually a thing? We have a farewell thread section, but afaik nobody's actually requested their account to be deleted.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:17:42 pm
Yes, Admins can delete accounts.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:21:13 pm
I don't question that Admins can delete accounts, merely if it's ever happened to community members, and not spambots. I've never heard of a situation where people have actually requested their accounts deleted instead of drifting off quietly (or with a rant and barbs towards rivals). In any case, my argument is still that a team consists of five forum account entities/members. Strictly. Two people sharing a forum account is fine as long as each of those people have only access to that one forum account. Is it stated in the rules that two people cannot share an account? I've only heard that one person cannot have more than one account, not the other way around.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:23:10 pm
To add on to that, I suppose we could simply say that having had a forum account once would be a disqualifying measure in considering eligibility for shared accounts, but that gets into convoluted messes that I don't really want to think about with regards to enforcement, enactment, etc.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 04:25:54 pm
I don't question that Admins can delete accounts, merely if it's ever happened to community members, and not spambots. I've never heard of a situation where people have actually requested their accounts deleted instead of drifting off quietly (or with a rant and barbs towards rivals). In any case, my argument is still that a team consists of five forum account entities/members. Strictly. Two people sharing a forum account is fine as long as each of those people have only access to that one forum account. Is it stated in the rules that two people cannot share an account? I've only heard that one person cannot have more than one account, not the other way around.

So, it is ok to have my whole family helping me with my vault organizing and deckbuilding at War with my ARTHANASIOS forum account. Yep, I am exaggerating, again...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:27:00 pm
As long as they don't have their own forum accounts, yes. Invite your whole city while you're at it, but if a person in that city has their own forum account then nope.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 04:27:41 pm
I don't question that Admins can delete accounts, merely if it's ever happened to community members, and not spambots. I've never heard of a situation where people have actually requested their accounts deleted instead of drifting off quietly (or with a rant and barbs towards rivals). In any case, my argument is still that a team consists of five forum account entities/members. Strictly. Two people sharing a forum account is fine as long as each of those people have only access to that one forum account. Is it stated in the rules that two people cannot share an account? I've only heard that one person cannot have more than one account, not the other way around.

So, it is ok to have my whole family helping me with my vault organizing and deckbuilding at War with my ARTHANASIOS forum account. Yep, I am exaggerating, again...

i would love to have your parents/siblings build decks against gravity... :D
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:30:56 pm
Yes, people have requested deletion before.

The forum rules allow for forum account sharing, and there are no in-game rules for or against account sharing. That's why War has a rule against sharing information. Sharing an account is sharing information.

There's been a similar discussion for tournaments where people were cooperating during deckbuilding and even in-game decisions. It's been frowned upon and filed under the "honor code" that applies to all games in general, but there's no written rule against it. That's why organizers have the authority to act on a case-by-case basis and add new rules as needed. In other words, a TO could punish you for this kind of cheating even if it wasn't in writing, simply because it's obviously cheating. Perhaps adding this in writing to tournaments would help set a precedent.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 04:33:18 pm
Yes, people have requested deletion before.

The forum rules allow for forum account sharing, and there are no in-game rules for or against account sharing. That's why War has a rule against sharing information. Sharing an account is sharing information.

There's been a similar discussion for tournaments where people were cooperating during deckbuilding and even in-game decisions. It's been frowned upon and filed under the "honor code" that applies to all games in general, but there's no written rule against it. That's why organizers have the authority to act on a case-by-case basis and add new rules as needed. In other words, a TO could punish you for this kind of cheating even if it wasn't in writing, simply because it's obviously cheating. Perhaps adding this in writing to tournaments would help set a precedent.

kinda offtopic but i have seen people prep for tourneys together. I have seen vets help out newbies with tourney to help them improve. I dont see anything wrong with it personally.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:34:33 pm
The forum rules allow for forum account sharing, and there are no in-game rules for or against account sharing. That's why War has a rule against sharing information. Sharing an account is sharing information.

The entity is not sharing information, as the entity is the account. That two people can access the account doesn't seem to be significant to me, as they always act as one entity in this forum. There is no sharing of information with unauthorized entities.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:36:11 pm
The rules state "a player", not "an account".
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:38:11 pm
The account entity "serprex" is the player. I think we're going into semantics at this point. You are advocating that the rules refer to people on an individual basis, whereas I am interpreting the rules to apply to account entities, which are usually but not always one person.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 04:39:50 pm
i would love to have your parents/siblings build decks against gravity... :D

Beware, I've managed to convince my mom to make an EtG game account a few months ago, though she stopped playing. :(
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on September 26, 2016, 04:40:11 pm
I'm with no penalty for light. We should appreciate honesty rather than penalise it. WMs can't prove serp asked kae without serp saying.
Honesty is a quality, but that is only an extenuating circumstance. It does not remove the fault (which is what is discussed right now, i believe).

Also, yall need to remember than rules & laws are blunt weapons, not cutting. 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. I don't believe you could fairly hard-code all the different instances of this happening in the rules, ever.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:41:26 pm
The account entity "serprex" is the player. I think we're going into semantics at this point. You are advocating that the rules refer to people on an individual basis, whereas I am interpreting the rules to apply to account entities, which are usually but not always one person.
Semantics are important for clearing out ambiguity.

Imagine someone getting caught cheating and defending themselves with the argument that "I thought "player" meant "account" in the rules". There is a 0% chance they avoid punishment. Those two words clearly mean different things.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:46:10 pm
I am interacting you as "Aves." Aves is an account. There is one person sitting behind a computer screen acting as Aves. However, in an alternate reality, it could be two people acting as Aves. Any rules inside these forums apply to members of the forum. Members are by definition, accounts, not people. Though there is usually a one to relation, it is not always the case. Is it stated that one player is one person, rather than one account? The default assumption for any entities here should always refer to accounts, as I see no reason for it to refer to persons, as persons are not what the rules refer to.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:48:16 pm
Yes, it's singular. "player"
Whether they're a cat or a person, there's only one of them.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:49:12 pm
If Bob and Joe have an account "BobJoe42" and Bob curses excessively in chat, BobJoe42 is banned from chat even if Joe didn't do anything wrong. If BobJoe42 joins War, why should they not be considered BobJoe42, and be forced to create "Bob4" and "Joe2?"

The singular applies to the entity.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Solaris on September 26, 2016, 04:50:17 pm
Perhaps adding this in writing to tournaments would help set a precedent.
It's effectively already there, with the no deck discussion rule, but I'd gladly bring up the possibility of a "no collaboration period" rule to math and Gin.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 04:52:45 pm
If Bob and Joe have an account "BobJoe42" and Bob curses excessively in chat, BobJoe42 is banned from chat even if Joe didn't do anything wrong. If BobJoe42 joins War, why should they not be considered BobJoe42, and be forced to create "Bob4" and "Joe2?"

The singular applies to the entity.
Yes and no. Two people can make two separate accounts on the same IP. This forces me to question them as to why they're sharing an IP since it means they might be one and the same person with two accounts. The most common reason is that they're using the same router on a typical school dorm configuration.

An account certainly contracts a ban, but so does the person. If they make a new account and they're found out, they're banned again for ban-evading. Player and person are the same thing, but account and person are not.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 04:52:51 pm
Perhaps adding this in writing to tournaments would help set a precedent.
It's effectively already there, with the no deck discussion rule, but I'd gladly bring up the possibility of a "no collaboration period" rule to math and Gin.

Oh it is? Then that rule has been broken down several times, just saying. I have even seen winners say that "I want to thank this player for helping me with decks" etc
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 04:59:37 pm
If Bob and Joe have an account "BobJoe42" and Bob curses excessively in chat, BobJoe42 is banned from chat even if Joe didn't do anything wrong. If BobJoe42 joins War, why should they not be considered BobJoe42, and be forced to create "Bob4" and "Joe2?"

The singular applies to the entity.
Yes and no. Two people can make two separate accounts on the same IP. This forces me to question them as to why they're sharing an IP since it means they might be one and the same person with two accounts. The most common reason is that they're using the same router on a typical school dorm configuration.

An account certainly contracts a ban, but so does the person. If they make a new account and they're found out, they're banned again for ban-evading. Player and person are the same thing, but account and person are not.
Certainly, accounts and people are not the same thing, as one account can have more than one person. Both the account and the person(s) behind the account are banned, and that is not wrong. I do challenge that Player and person are the same thing. It is not clear to me that player does not refer to the account entity rather than to the person(s) behind the account entity.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 05:05:05 pm
Certainly, accounts and people are not the same thing, as one account can have more than one person.
And one person many accounts, just saying...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 05:07:31 pm
Certainly, accounts and people are not the same thing, as one account can have more than one person.
And one person many accounts, just saying...
It is explicitly established that one person having many accounts is against the rules, and alts can and have been banned.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 05:22:27 pm
Mkay, that's a semantic ambiguity that we can clarify in the rules for all official PvP. A player is, in the context of the rules, one person. One does not need an account to be a player.

As for this issue at hand, the WM's can act on things even if they're not covered by the written rules. This could also use some clarifying, as in the forum rules:
"Undefined: Obviously we can't anticipate every situation. For that reason, We reserve the right to remove any user at any time for any reason. If we think you're trying to manipulate the system, you'll be removed."

From the rules, this is currently covered by:
5. PENALTIES

Penalties are issued when a team somehow breaks the rules or disrupts War.
Because the bold part isn't clearly defined, it gives the WM's leeway. I would suggest the following edit:

"Penalties are normally issued when one or several team members break the rules or disrupt war. As written rules cannot cover all contingencies, Warmasters and Administrators reserve the right to issue penalties for any reason."
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 05:32:56 pm
PvP being such an important part of the forum, I find it difficult to approve of that. It effectively bans from PvP any people who share an account. It is discrimination against people who like to play together with friends/family online. Does it matter if UTA ever shows his 5 year old (congratulations!) what a tourney looks like, or if serprex does all his gaming with his SO? While I doubt there's a significant minority of people who do share accounts, it's nevertheless a cumbersome restriction towards people like that which to me, doesn't mesh with the direction the community is going towards. We need to be more inclusive, not more restrictive. We will only lose people over this, and we will not gain any significant benefit. I respectfully dissent (not that my opinion has any weight, granted) from your ruling.

As for the clarification about disrupts war, I think it was implied anyways, but I don't have a problem with it. I do think that WMs should also reserve the right NOT to issue penalties for any reason, for example not catching a proper thread title until an hour after the match.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Zawadx on September 26, 2016, 05:36:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on September 26, 2016, 05:42:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 05:44:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on September 26, 2016, 05:49:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 05:49:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on September 26, 2016, 05:50:36 pm
It does sound to me like you want to punish someone though.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 05:51:52 pm
If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would not punish serp or his team. I do wish to clarify the rules, however.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 26, 2016, 05:52:51 pm
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. :P
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... :P
Exaggerating once again...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 26, 2016, 05:55:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: andretimpa on September 26, 2016, 06:14:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 26, 2016, 07:28:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Solaris on September 26, 2016, 07:33:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: kaempfer13 on September 26, 2016, 07:47:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on September 26, 2016, 08:04:14 pm
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
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 26, 2016, 09:10:44 pm
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.
The current rules are only clarified by this definition. Allowing or disallowing account sharing is a different issue. Most PvP events naturally won't allow it as far as community members go. It appears the distinction between a community member and a non-member is an important one for several people, though I don't quite see the difference myself. That said, if the goal is to restrict competency allocation per account, it's as good a restriction as any.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: mathman101 on September 27, 2016, 04:53:46 am
Thank you for being patient with us as we discussed the ruling regarding Light's having a non-team light member aiding them.

Warmasters have decided a moderate penalty of 20 cards is appropriate here, as well as the removal of Kae's Gdoc access to Light's Vault.

After discussing both sides of action between Physsion and myself, we are ruling this as Light potentially had a sixth person aiding them in their decisions in some way shape or form.
Vault access was given to Kae, and this falls under the ruling within the vault post as being "anybody outside of the team".

Quote
War #10 - Team Vault

Do not share this link with anybody outside your team.

We understand that Kae may be a significant other to a member on team light, but the current rules are intended for singular persons to singular accounts not hydra accounts.
Hydra account possibilities may be considered for future wars by future WMs and admins, but for the current one they are not allowed.

These difficult decisions are tough to make, but are made with the best intentions of being concise with the current rules for the current war.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: dragonsdemesne on September 27, 2016, 06:27:23 am
For the record, I had no idea this was going on.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 27, 2016, 06:37:10 am
Thank you for being patient with us as we discussed the ruling regarding Light's having a non-team light member aiding them.

Warmasters have decided a moderate penalty of 20 cards is appropriate here, as well as the removal of Kae's Gdoc access to Light's Vault.

After discussing both sides of action between Physsion and myself, we are ruling this as Light potentially had a sixth person aiding them in their decisions in some way shape or form.
Vault access was given to Kae, and this falls under the ruling within the vault post as being "anybody outside of the team".

Quote
War #10 - Team Vault

Do not share this link with anybody outside your team.

We understand that Kae may be a significant other to a member on team light, but the current rules are intended for singular persons to singular accounts not hydra accounts.
Hydra account possibilities may be considered for future wars by future WMs and admins, but for the current one they are not allowed.

These difficult decisions are tough to make, but are made with the best intentions of being concise with the current rules for the current war.

Hail Hydra!
Joking aside, WMs have done the right thing imho.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Odii Odsen on September 27, 2016, 09:27:22 am
Why a team should get a penalty for getting help from someone who don't own a forum account?

Please, stop doing drama where no drama is. 20 Cards is too high. Without serpex nobody would know. Even his own teammates. I am totally against a penalty but at least a mitigation of punishment since serpex was honest.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: serprex on September 27, 2016, 11:43:14 am
Sorry, penalty too low, you need to remove me from the Team. Kae & I are a unit; this penalty won't be changing my behavior which imo was completely correct (someone could've politely asked me to only do war prep in the mornings while Kae's asleep, but nope)

Better penalize us again next round otherwise
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on September 27, 2016, 11:44:46 am
Why a team should get a penalty for getting help from someone who don't own a forum account?

Please, stop doing drama where no drama is. 20 Cards is too high. Without serpex nobody would know. Even his own teammates. I am totally against a penalty but at least a mitigation of punishment since serpex was honest.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on September 27, 2016, 11:45:24 am
Why a team should get a penalty for getting help from someone who don't own a forum account?

Please, stop doing drama where no drama is. 20 Cards is too high. Without serpex nobody would know. Even his own teammates. I am totally against a penalty but at least a mitigation of punishment since serpex was honest.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: RavingRabbid on September 27, 2016, 11:48:52 am
This whole deal is ridicolous and any penalty issued is an error. I demand that every team from every past war is now retroactively checked to see if they ever had anyone external to the team say anything as minor as a deckbuilding tip to a team, adjust standings accordingly and in case remove past war rewards.


Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: serprex on September 27, 2016, 11:50:51 am
In War #8 as WM I suggested to Team Light they build mutant photons while in their teamchat. Better retroactively penalize Light another 20 cards

Fun fact: all 4 of the games we've won were thrown together without Kae. The pugons was thrown together with computer aid. She may've given some suggestion on the entropydomin; I was pretty proud of it. But it was probably only to insult it or to restate her opinion that Discord is the best card in the game (maybe after Miracle)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on September 27, 2016, 11:59:50 am
OK, i'm going to elaborate.

The reaction to this (and actually most of the drama currently) harbors from a time when the game was big, being updated frequently, and the forums needed serious, constant, and vigilant moderation to deal with many players, and a community that was too big to know everyone. It was a classic gaming community, and ran itself well.

Those days are over (not the running well part, that is still the case, mostly). Until this war my experience of the community was that almost everyone treated eachother with respect and sportsmanship. What mattered was the enjoyment of the game and community, not simply winning, and being a stickler for the rules to the point of making clearly pointless decisions simply for the sake of avoiding setting a precedent.

Sure, there are still going to be some new players and some hardcore players seeking to subvert the rules to personal gain. But having a precedent does NOT mean you can't punish them for doing something actually wrong.

We are a small enough community now that we can handle almost EVERYTHING on a case-by-case basis. We can be an actual gaming COMMUNITY in this way. In real life, in a community, you KNOW when someone is in the wrong and needs to be disciplined. This should be the same way here.

It is not how larger, more active communities run, but we are not a large active community. Keep the rules, but handle rulings case by case, and don't punish people simply to avoid setting a precedent.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: serprex on September 27, 2016, 12:01:50 pm
If I really wanted to subvert war in the interest of winning I'd log every match played in oetg-v (spoiler: I don't)
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: RavingRabbid on September 27, 2016, 12:02:48 pm
We are a small enough community now that we can handle almost EVERYTHING on a case-by-case basis. We can be an actual gaming COMMUNITY in this way.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 27, 2016, 12:11:20 pm
I also am for the penalty to be removed. It's something silly and not needed
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: mrpaper on September 27, 2016, 12:12:40 pm
We are a small enough community now that we can handle almost EVERYTHING on a case-by-case basis. We can be an actual gaming COMMUNITY in this way.

This!

Also, it's not like giving them a penalty for a lesson is gonna help this war in anyway.. a simple warning if anything would have been enough or just a give a 3 card penalty for the sake of saying this isn't in the spirit of the war.
On the other hand if WM'S think that this is a major way of disrupting the event... I guess the next thing will be to kick serprex out of team light since he ain't gonna change and I don't wanna see the same drama for round 6 and 7 etc., but I would much rather if they just tolerate what he did.  Keeping a 20 card penalty and doing nothing else seems the worst way to let things be at this moment!
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Odii Odsen on September 27, 2016, 12:17:11 pm
Physs and mathman are fair and trying their best to treat all teams the same. I really respect your work and your decisions.
WM's are doing a great job, even if they made two mistakes IMO (Aether mark in Fire's deck and this one).

I just fear that people lose interest in events like this. Our community won't get bigger on this way. Two examples are 10 men and inthisroom who didn't agree on staffs decisions and left.

Btw. I love the EC in round 5.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: mrpaper on September 27, 2016, 12:56:49 pm
Physs and mathman are fair and trying their best to treat all teams the same. I really respect your work and your decisions.
WM's are doing a great job, even if they made two mistakes IMO (Aether mark in Fire's deck and this one).

I just fear that people lose interest in events like this. Our community won't get bigger on this way. Two examples are 10 men and inthisroom who didn't agree on staffs decisions and left.

Btw. I love the EC in round 5.
I don't think anyone is questioning WM's efforts and fairness if anything, they deserve praise for this!  But players and WM's make mistake and WM's needs to make decisions on this kind of unpleasant stuff every war. The most simple and smooth way to go was just to say... no harm, no WM's care, no penalty go along and we will think of it next war... but i'm sure they thought of it pretty hard before deciding on punishing serprex/team light.  Is the fact we feel the penalty is unfair going to make them change their mind?  I don't know, but it sure add to the drama of war... which can be fun on the outside, but never much for the teams/players involved (I've been there many times!) and WM's.

By the way the EC of round 5 is in fact a nice one, nothing too original, but seems fair and will be fun to see who mines itself being too confident on a specific match!  And I also wanna see if teams are going to go the safe way or aim to make the top teams fall (air and gravity have a commanding lead as of now but we all know this can change quickly with a bad round).
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 27, 2016, 01:02:15 pm
WMs are doing the best they can to be impartial and fair. We should all respect that.

That said, I think it's a terrible shame that this had to come to pass at all. I vehemently disagree with the current interpretation of the rules. Banning multi-user accounts from PvP only harms the community. You can say that the rules were always meant to be interpreted in this way, but as it's been said, over and over-- there would be no way of telling without them directly admitting it. Enforcing a ban on multi-user accounts from PvP for simply being honest, upstanding people is ridiculous conceptually.

We are a small enough community now that we can handle almost EVERYTHING on a case-by-case basis. We can be an actual gaming COMMUNITY in this way.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Odii Odsen on September 27, 2016, 01:05:23 pm
I just fear that people lose interest in events like this. Our community won't get bigger on this way. Two examples are 10 men and inthisroom who didn't agree on staffs decisions and left.

I see this coming. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/farewell/serprex-63179/msg1247173/#msg1247173
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 27, 2016, 01:07:39 pm
fwiw, it might help clear stuff.

[2016-09-27 13:25:52] Physsion: The penalty was NOT given because serprex lives with his girlfriend, and they decided to spend some time together working on something. This isn't something we can stop, but direct collaboration with explicit vault access is something mathman and I decided that we weren't okay with
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Manuel on September 27, 2016, 02:18:40 pm
i still don't understand this drama based on a guy and his gf in a game where 70% of matches are rng/luck based,  6 elements have no chances to win war and the hardest thing is keep the motivation for playing every week
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on September 27, 2016, 03:20:59 pm
Did the team know about this? If not, maybe a punishment just for serpex would be more fitting?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 27, 2016, 03:22:58 pm
Did the team know about this? If not, maybe a punishment just for serpex would be more fitting?

The guy's already leaving the forums... what more do you want? Sheesh.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: andretimpa on September 27, 2016, 03:32:46 pm
i still don't understand this drama based on a guy and his gf in a game where 70% of matches are rng/luck based,  6 elements have no chances to win war and the hardest thing is keep the motivation for playing every week

^ what this guy said
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on September 27, 2016, 03:46:20 pm
Did the team know about this? If not, maybe a punishment just for serpex would be more fitting?

The guy's already leaving the forums... what more do you want? Sheesh.

This has nothing to do with that.... Team Light is losing a valuable member and getting a 20 card penalty.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 27, 2016, 03:56:51 pm
fwiw, it might help clear stuff.

[2016-09-27 13:25:52] Physsion: The penalty was NOT given because serprex lives with his girlfriend, and they decided to spend some time together working on something. This isn't something we can stop, but direct collaboration with explicit vault access is something mathman and I decided that we weren't okay with

I don't know if this change things, but kae just had viewing permission for our vault and not an editing one.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Higurashi on September 27, 2016, 04:26:36 pm
It looks like serp would leave whether there was a card penalty or not. As he said, if he can't share his hobby with his gf, he wouldn't enjoy it.

The current rules are as they are for a reason. Outside vault access understandably makes WM's very uncomfortable, and a penalty makes sense in several ways. It's a big breach of the current rules to give access to an outside competent player, and it easily classifies as a very disruptive action. The team has always been punished for team member mistakes because it's the team as a whole that stands to gain or lose from disruptive actions. It works as a unit.

WM's could decide not to punish for cards, but then how do you punish? If you don't punish, what's the point of having the rules? Who would respect them? It's not an easy choice to make, and both choices have merit.

Would we be complaining as much if serp took the penalty without leaving? Probably not. I think the true mistake here is serp's for leaving over something that may be subject to change, but currently is as it is for a good reason.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 27, 2016, 04:36:21 pm
We would absolutely be complaining just as much if serp took the penalty without leaving, because it was implied clearly that serp wouldn't have been allowed to pvp in the way the he has always done it-- namely, sharing his fun and participation with his gf. Our discussion over the semantics of whether player referred to a person or to an account entity made clear that, with your ruling of player = person, his way of participating in our community was not allowed.

Not all rule-breaking must be punished. That's a case of Maslow's Hammer. Just because you have the option to punish, does not mean you are obligated to do so or that it is the right choice. If the issue that the rule is trying to address can be solved without punishment, then it should be addressed without punishment.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: majofa on September 27, 2016, 04:45:01 pm
Not sharing the vault info with someone outside the team isn't as much a War rule, but a protection for the team. If I found out someone was sharing my team's vault outside the team, I wouldn't expect a penalty but a removal of that person from my team and a change in permissions in the vault.

If Team Light is being punished for 'having an extra person'... even if the person isn't on the forums at all... then mayyybbeee a penalty, but even then, why? It's not like a skilled member of the community chose not to apply for War and then helped a team.

Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 27, 2016, 05:01:09 pm
What majofa said. Exactly what I was trying to get at with this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-10-general-discussion/msg1247005/#msg1247005), just explained more clearly and succinctly. Even if it is listed in the rules with the wording it has now, I think a majority of the community believes that the spirit of the law is more for team protection than for cheating prevention, though I admit that the latter is a valid interpretation.

And while we're on the topic of disrupting War, I think the outcry over this event is ten times more disruptive than the disruption that would've been caused by simply letting serprex participate in the community (with PvP).
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: theelkspeaks on September 27, 2016, 06:10:15 pm
Due to being in the middle of moving, I missed this occurrence until after it was over.  I feel like the situation of serprex and kae sharing the info should not have been penalized and should have been allowed under the current rules.  Looking at the rule, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to see that the object of the rule is to prevent two teams from sharing information with each other for mutual advantage, or situations like that.  When a player outside of any team contributes, some advantage might be gained, but I still don't think that it's especially unfair.  When one regularly plays games of any sort with an SO or family member, or even in the same room as, it's pretty normal for some conversation about the games to be exchanged - even if the other person doesn't play the game at all, and it seems unnatural to stifle the conversation altogether unless the two players are actively on different teams from each other.

I wouldn't disagree with removing kae's direct vault access, as vault should probably limited to the official team members, but I have no issue at all with the actual deck helping.

To touch on another issue brought up in this thread, I do think it's fairly clear that tournament deck discussion of all sorts should be actively minimized until after the tournament is over and collaboration should be discouraged.  That's a specific tournament rule, because tournaments are in large part competitive explicitly due to the need to prepare for the tournament.  If a vet wants to help a newbie, discuss your tournament prep AFTER the tournament is over and walk them through your process.  I've done it before and it's definitely helpful.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on September 27, 2016, 08:59:26 pm
#Nopenalty #bringbackserp
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on September 28, 2016, 06:58:58 am
#Nopenalty #bringbackserp
I agree as well, but I'm afraid it's too late for that :(
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Tiko on September 28, 2016, 07:38:43 am
Out of curiosity I've read back 5 or six pages just to get a rough picture what's this all about. So even today: War = drama?

This reminds me of a little story - it may or may not be relevant: Back at War#3 both me and my brother participated. We were drafted into different teams while living in the same house: even having our computers in the same room! As my work schedule was quite chaotic back then, sometimes he helped me out making deck compilations (no Vault tools then) and furthermore, as we were always familiar with each other's passwords, on one occasion he even posted them for my team - on my request, in our secret section(!) - when I couldn't make it in time before the deadline.

Apart from that there was always the opportunity for us to run through the other team's secret sections while the other was away to gain an upper hand, or we could just simply share it between each other. At the end of the day, it all came down to trust and having fun; but could any other than us tell?
It was a well known fact that we're family, and we also had the same IP going of course. Even after my team dropped out, we kept on discussing strategic decisions when he was preparing for their matchups. Nobody had any objections about any of this and never once we were accused of 'cheating' because of it, or even the thought of penalties for such was unheard of. And the game and the community was still thriving at that time.

So, in general, may I ask what's the point for all this?
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 28, 2016, 07:56:05 am
Out of curiosity I've read back 5 or six pages just to get a rough picture what's this all about. So even today: War = drama?

This reminds me of a little story - it may or may not be relevant: Back at War#3 both me and my brother participated. We were drafted into different teams while living in the same house: even having our computers in the same room! As my work schedule was quite chaotic back then, sometimes he helped me out making deck compilations (no Vault tools then) and furthermore, as we were always familiar with each other's passwords, on one occasion he even posted them for my team - on my request, in our secret section(!) - when I couldn't make it in time before the deadline.

Apart from that there was always the opportunity for us to run through the other team's secret sections while the other was away to gain an upper hand, or we could just simply share it between each other. At the end of the day, it all came down to trust and having fun; but could any other than us tell?
It was a well known fact that we're family, and we also had the same IP going of course. Even after my team dropped out, we kept on discussing strategic decisions when he was preparing for their matchups. Nobody had any objections about any of this and never once we were accused of 'cheating' because of it, or even the thought of penalties for such was unheard of. And the game and the community was still thriving at that time.

So, in general, may I ask what's the point for all this?

I am going to add to drama, sorry guys; I do not know the War rules back then, but with the current rules this is probably & potentially a Backroom Deal.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Heman on September 28, 2016, 12:52:17 pm
Out of curiosity I've read back 5 or six pages just to get a rough picture what's this all about. So even today: War = drama?

So, in general, may I ask what's the point for all this?
Drama. Even we from team :life had our dose of drama this war...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Aves on September 28, 2016, 02:27:36 pm
Out of curiosity I've read back 5 or six pages just to get a rough picture what's this all about. So even today: War = drama?

This reminds me of a little story - it may or may not be relevant: Back at War#3 both me and my brother participated. We were drafted into different teams while living in the same house: even having our computers in the same room! As my work schedule was quite chaotic back then, sometimes he helped me out making deck compilations (no Vault tools then) and furthermore, as we were always familiar with each other's passwords, on one occasion he even posted them for my team - on my request, in our secret section(!) - when I couldn't make it in time before the deadline.

Apart from that there was always the opportunity for us to run through the other team's secret sections while the other was away to gain an upper hand, or we could just simply share it between each other. At the end of the day, it all came down to trust and having fun; but could any other than us tell?
It was a well known fact that we're family, and we also had the same IP going of course. Even after my team dropped out, we kept on discussing strategic decisions when he was preparing for their matchups. Nobody had any objections about any of this and never once we were accused of 'cheating' because of it, or even the thought of penalties for such was unheard of. And the game and the community was still thriving at that time.

So, in general, may I ask what's the point for all this?

As far as I can tell, the difference in your case (and with the current chrispybacon84+RapidStar_ brothers, as well as other cases) is that you've all presented yourself as separate entities. Serp+Kae were trying to play as one unit. By the current standard player = person (rather than player= account), that is "sharing information" because the rules refer to individuals. Basically, if you and your brother had decided to join the forums on one account, you both would've been barred from PvP.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: andretimpa on September 28, 2016, 07:12:01 pm
Out of curiosity I've read back 5 or six pages just to get a rough picture what's this all about. So even today: War = drama?

This reminds me of a little story - it may or may not be relevant: Back at War#3 both me and my brother participated. We were drafted into different teams while living in the same house: even having our computers in the same room! As my work schedule was quite chaotic back then, sometimes he helped me out making deck compilations (no Vault tools then) and furthermore, as we were always familiar with each other's passwords, on one occasion he even posted them for my team - on my request, in our secret section(!) - when I couldn't make it in time before the deadline.

Apart from that there was always the opportunity for us to run through the other team's secret sections while the other was away to gain an upper hand, or we could just simply share it between each other. At the end of the day, it all came down to trust and having fun; but could any other than us tell?
It was a well known fact that we're family, and we also had the same IP going of course. Even after my team dropped out, we kept on discussing strategic decisions when he was preparing for their matchups. Nobody had any objections about any of this and never once we were accused of 'cheating' because of it, or even the thought of penalties for such was unheard of. And the game and the community was still thriving at that time.

So, in general, may I ask what's the point for all this?

As far as I can tell, the difference in your case (and with the current chrispybacon84+RapidStar_ brothers, as well as other cases) is that you've all presented yourself as separate entities. Serp+Kae were trying to play as one unit. By the current standard player = person (rather than player= account), that is "sharing information" because the rules refer to individuals. Basically, if you and your brother had decided to join the forums on one account, you both would've been barred from PvP.

But as ARTH pointed out, that would actually be "a larger violation of the rules" than just a hydra.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: worldwideweb3 on November 23, 2016, 04:37:22 pm
I've pmed math about it but wanted public opinion on it too. So, near start of war, aves asked me the order of S/D/T and asked if we were allowed to discard the salvage from the same round last war. Math confirmed with us two that this war we were not allowed to do this. Couple days before, while casually chatting, i found out that other teams had been discarding the salvage they got that round, which WMs failed to catch. Having heard of that, i was pretty annoyed that what we thought of as illegal, was actually legal in other teams' opinions, as WMs only told us of this rule, and failed to let other teams know of this at any occasion. Now, i asked them if we can, from now onwards, be allowed to do this, as other teams have been doing it throughout war without any consequence. Would like to have what other people think on this. Poor us and darkness...
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: iancudorinmarian on November 23, 2016, 04:40:15 pm
I can confirm what www3 said. I have asked this earlier in war and got the same answer.

I would not agree however for a change in rules at this point in war. At best WMs should be a little more careful and penalize this if it happens (should be easier now with only 3 teams left).
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: rob77dp on November 23, 2016, 04:58:18 pm
I've pmed math about it but wanted public opinion on it too. So, near start of war, aves asked me the order of S/D/T and asked if we were allowed to discard the salvage from the same round last war. Math confirmed with us two that this war we were not allowed to do this. Couple days before, while casually chatting, i found out that other teams had been discarding the salvage they got that round, which WMs failed to catch. Having heard of that, i was pretty annoyed that what we thought of as illegal, was actually legal in other teams' opinions, as WMs only told us of this rule, and failed to let other teams know of this at any occasion. Now, i asked them if we can, from now onwards, be allowed to do this, as other teams have been doing it throughout war without any consequence. Would like to have what other people think on this. Poor us and darkness...
I can confirm what www3 said. I have asked this earlier in war and got the same answer.

I would not agree however for a change in rules at this point in war. At best WMs should be a little more careful and penalize this if it happens (should be easier now with only 3 teams left).

As for :death in this War, we treated the order as similar to what my :death teams did in past Wars... that being DSCTP (in full) which is:
Discard --> Salvage --> Conversion --> Transmutation --> Penalty
This war was simply DSTP since pillar/pendulums are non-vaulted cards. At least, this is what our Team's objective was each round... decide discards, figure out salvages, and then determine what we might want to change into in-element along with resolving penalties.

It seems counter-intuitive to be able to discard cards (i.e. - give up for attrition in the lost battle/match) that you didn't have coming into that battlefield (round). I do not recall asking WM's or anyone about this myself this War but it seemed no change mentioned so I continued what was held in the past and which also aligned with how battle/War would intuitively shake out.


--Rob
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on November 23, 2016, 05:02:31 pm
Since vault allows this perfectly fine, I personally figured it would be allowed just fine. If wms do not check this either, there is no point in disallowing it, except for penalizing honest people. I also do not see a significant problem with it, I guess this being a problem wasn't something wms realized, because vault discards are new this war. For the same reason, vault discard fodder was initially underestimated.

I think transparency was something we missed more often this war: making sure everyone knows when and why teams are penalized are the best way to prevent other teams from breaking the same rule (in this case discarding stuff on the round it was salvaged).
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on November 23, 2016, 06:45:45 pm
Full disclosure, I had absolutely no idea this was illegal, and it never even occurred to me that it would be. Not certain, but pretty sure I was doing this at some point, but it doesn't say anywhere in rules that it was illegal :/
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Jenkar on November 30, 2016, 12:49:18 pm
Double full disclosure
Hey maybe this is why we managed to get such a good vault all the time till the last round.
I mean separating phases is so 2010
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Blacksmith on November 30, 2016, 02:42:19 pm
Double full disclosure
Hey maybe this is why we managed to get such a good vault all the time till the last round.
I mean separating phases is so 2010
I don't think this would have mattered a lot until late in war. And I don't see any reason for such a rule.
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Ryli on November 30, 2016, 03:03:34 pm
I asked the team about this, but got outvoted 3-1, so assumed I was just mistaken. :P
Title: Re: War #10 - General Discussion
Post by: Blacksmith on November 30, 2016, 04:57:24 pm
I asked the team about this, but got outvoted 3-1, so assumed I was just mistaken. :P
I don't remember this. I guess I must have misunderstood.
blarg: Discord