War #10 - General Discussion

[Higurashi]

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

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

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

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.

[mathman101]

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".

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.

[dragonsdemesne]

For the record, I had no idea this was going on.

[ARTHANASIOS]

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".

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.

[Odii Odsen]

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.

[serprex]

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

[iancudorinmarian]

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.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

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.

[RavingRabbid]

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.

[serprex]

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)

[JonathanCrazyJ]

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.

[serprex]

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)