2013-07-31, 21:52:29
(2013-07-31, 12:25:34)griffin1987 Wrote: 1. Yes, I dislike people typing -giveup. I've seen that in the first 5 minutes of the game more often than not, and think it's just dumb. Think about sports for example: How often do you see a football team giving up? What happens if one of the player decides to giveup? -> He will probably be taken off court by the coach (and swapped with another player)
This is a completely irrelevant comparison, the aren't coaches and player swaps in bt. Players join as individuals, not teams. Furthermore it takes a great amount of coordination and organization to start a football game, in bt you just join and play. If we classify the purpose of the game as "having fun," how exactly is playing a hopeless 3v5 game more fun than starting a new 5v5 game?
(2013-07-31, 12:25:34)griffin1987 Wrote: 2. As per your logic it's repeated idiotic behaviour if I join a game to play it and then continue playing it, while it's perfectly normal that you join a game to play it and then try to end it early on. I leave it to the readers to decide if that sounds logical.
I said it could be seen "idiot behavior" because (in gozo's case) he was going against the opinion of HIS ENTIRE TEAM. It doesn't matter whether it's getting 5 multibows, buying acid cannon helicopter, or simply not giving up, if a person does something to piss off their entire team, then they're putting themselves in harm's way, and committing a "provocative behavior," which could create conflict leading to additional people breaking the guidelines and just generally ruining the game's environment. (you ever notice that some of the most common ban requesters are some of the most "provocative" people?)
(2013-07-31, 12:25:34)griffin1987 Wrote: 3. The "being provoked" thing can be taken as something reducing the punishment, but saying it's okay if you get provoked is a self-righteous argument. Look at the law for example - do you think you could kill someone without being punished if he provoked you? Do you think you would get less punishment (jail/money) for doing something against the law if you said that you "were being provoked"?
This isn't normal law, it's just the bt guidelines on ban requests. Why don't you go through the ban request thread and see how many requests have been tossed out due to "provocation," you'll find it's a commonly accepted practice. I didn't say it was justified, I just said the admins DO it, if you have a problem with the practice take it up with the admins not me. I was just stating the way things ARE.
Furthermore you even SAID yourself in your "apology" to Trahorist (which is completely pointless by the way since it's very likely he has never gone to this forum) that your behavior was "very unfortunate collateral damage due to a long chain of events," aka you were provoked, and you're using that as an excuse for your behavior. At this point you're making double standards FOR YOURSELF.
(2013-07-31, 12:25:34)griffin1987 Wrote: 4. Please read all posts before you write something. I even put links in my posts to threads where I suggested the -giveup command being removed MULTIPLE TIMES. It's not helping anyone if you just randomly comment something without reading the background information.
That was the point of my post though. It's quite clear most people don't have quite an... extreme opinion as you. Rules don't get changed because ONE person has a problem with them, that's just ridiculous. Once you convince enough people (people who actually PLAY bt, by the way), that completely removing the -giveup command is justified then something might happen. But taking out your frustration against anyone who simply uses the command is rather immature, don't you think? (or perhaps you were "provoked")
(2013-07-31, 12:25:34)griffin1987 Wrote: 5. If someone else submitted it and eSVau approved it, I would still be discussing this here probably, but NOT because of abuse of power. The ban request would have taken the correct path and there would be no discussion about abuse of power. And your argument if logically irrelevant, because the discussion is not about "there has to be 1 admin reviewing it" but "it has to be publicly posted with replay, and there has to be 1 admin reviewing it, which may not be the player or part of the game". That's the reason why it has to be posted with replay. And if you think about it, it makes sense, because anyone who is part of a game can't make an unbiased judgement (except for maybe spectators, but there aren't any in league games), while if an admin does it who wasn't part of the game, there can be an unbiased (or at least as unbiased as possible) and fair judgement.
You stated it yourself, there is no rule against the admin reviewing the game actually being in the game. If the purpose of the replay is so that the admin can project themselves into the game, then this is made redundant and unnecessary by the fact that the admin would already be in the game. As for the "public posting," well it doesn't have any real weight anyway. Sure I as a non-admin can watch all the ban requests, but I'm not allowed to actually post any opinions in the ban request thread. Furthermore my personal opinion would have no direct impact on whether a person is banned or not, I could indirectly sway an admin's opinion with my arguments, but in the end it's 100% the admin's decision whether a person is banned or not.
Keep in mind that the administration is offering us, the players, a FREE service of hosting this league. To be frank it doesn't matter what's "fair" and "unbiased" or not, simply whatever they say. If you disagree then, as you said, you can create your own map+hostbots. Let's see who the "barking dog that doesn't bite" is now.