eSVau double standards / abuse of league admin power

[BENNIE.FM]

Well isn't this an interesting thread haha cobra so funny.I think its good people voice there i do think at times people and double standards are used however i think as long as every player even admins acts in a game are treated on the same playing field when it comes to bans should be reasonable.

[RaptorXI]

Griffin, just ask for unban next week!

[gozo1985]

since yet not a single post or statement to the double standards..... a shame

[RaptorXI]

It's an open secret that friends of admins don't get bans...
ESV:I'm his fan and i love to argue with him! Especially when he gets angry and writes sentences containing more than one word!

[gozo1985]

raptor just here to make bad jokes or any positive feedback?

[RaptorXI]

To take it with a sense of humor when it's getting too serious...

[eSVau]

It's an open secret that friends of admins don't get bans...

which is not true, there are even banned account of tez

[RaptorXI]

It's an open secret that friends of admins don't get bans...

which is not true, there are even banned account of tez

Then i have to apologize

[UnifiedDoom]

griffin it's quite clear you hold a grudge against anyone who uses the -giveup command. I could argue with you how illogical and senseless your complete refusal to give up in some cases is, but at the end of the day you're perfectly within your rights to choose whether to give up or not. As Prog said however, this also works in reverse, you can't simply kick people for using the -giveup command, as they are within their rights to do that as well.

That being said, while you are within your rights to do this, in some cases this is also "provocative behavior" which can no doubt lead to conflict. If we take gozo's case as an example, his team kicked him primarily because he refused to giveup (the kick system also recognized he was "feeding" I assume). If that were taken into account alone, then his entire team may have deserved a ban. However many ban requests have been thrown out because the players "breaking the rules" were often provoked by others, this is particularly true with flaming ban requests. In this case the admin probably saw it as such. In other words a "no giving up ever" policy could easily be classified as "REPEATING IDIOT BEHAVIOR," since it serves to create conflict, which is explicitly against the guidelines.

If you have such a big problem with the -giveup command, then you should use the forum to suggest it be removed entirely, not hate on the players that use it.

As for people who are claiming esvau has double standards for not posting a request himself and letting another admin confirm it. Don't you realize it takes only one admin to confirm a ban request anyway? What if one of the players in that game submitted a ban request for griffin's "unsocial behavior" and then esvau confirmed it. You've got the same number of admin's reviewing the case so anything on "admins must post their own requests to be reviewed by other admins" is completely invalid.

[gozo1985]

....
but at the end of the day you're perfectly within your rights to choose whether to give up or not.
....
(the kick system also recognized he was "feeding" I assume)
....
In other words a "no giving up ever" policy could easily be classified as "REPEATING IDIOT BEHAVIOR," since it serves to create conflict, which is explicitly against the guidelines.
....
If you have such a big problem with the -giveup command, then you should use the forum to suggest it be removed entirely, not hate on the players that use it.
....

- quote part 1 and quote part 3 are a bit of an opposition dont you think so ?

- part 2: yes your right as i was in the losing team in a ranked game its quiet easy to get penalties by porting to CPs to defend them and get sloughtered. btw. rest in my team also got enough penalty to be kickable too. but thanks your oppinion and sharing it with the fact they deserve a ban. if i start to rethink this request i have to say that the system called me a "feeder" after the kickvote so the "-yes" votes could also be done for that. maybe this was a small overreaction to say, the "-yes" voters also deserve a ban. but at least Katzi1 deserved one becouse he also wrote in chat he kicks be becouse of not giving up!!!! AND DONT TELL ME THIS IS NOT UNSOCIAL BEHAVIOR!
.... disapproved ....

- part 4: he already did that... multiple times aswell for kick and giveup system.

[griffin1987]

griffin it's quite clear you hold a grudge against anyone who uses the -giveup command. I could argue with you how illogical and senseless your complete refusal to give up in some cases is, but at the end of the day you're perfectly within your rights to choose whether to give up or not. As Prog said however, this also works in reverse, you can't simply kick people for using the -giveup command, as they are within their rights to do that as well.

That being said, while you are within your rights to do this, in some cases this is also "provocative behavior" which can no doubt lead to conflict. If we take gozo's case as an example, his team kicked him primarily because he refused to giveup (the kick system also recognized he was "feeding" I assume). If that were taken into account alone, then his entire team may have deserved a ban. However many ban requests have been thrown out because the players "breaking the rules" were often provoked by others, this is particularly true with flaming ban requests. In this case the admin probably saw it as such. In other words a "no giving up ever" policy could easily be classified as "REPEATING IDIOT BEHAVIOR," since it serves to create conflict, which is explicitly against the guidelines.

If you have such a big problem with the -giveup command, then you should use the forum to suggest it be removed entirely, not hate on the players that use it.

As for people who are claiming esvau has double standards for not posting a request himself and letting another admin confirm it. Don't you realize it takes only one admin to confirm a ban request anyway? What if one of the players in that game submitted a ban request for griffin's "unsocial behavior" and then esvau confirmed it. You've got the same number of admin's reviewing the case so anything on "admins must post their own requests to be reviewed by other admins" is completely invalid.

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)

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.

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"?

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.

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.

Also, if you would've read my past posts, you would see that I already said I don't care about the ban anymore, it's only about the abuse of power now.

[Prog]

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"?

There are extenuating circumstances ("mildernde umstände") in law and forms of provocation are in fact part of these. So yes, you will get less of a punishment if you can prove that you were being provoked.


Also the analogy to football is terrible as it is a time-based game. You can see that in professional (and non-professional) league of legends it does happen that teams surrender before the nexus is destroyed, when they think they don't have a chance any more (their surrender vote is similar to the BT one). In professional (and also non-professional) Starcraft it is common practice to leave the game before every building is destroyed.

In sports like cycling, running, or cross-country skiing it is common not to finish a race when you are too far behind, so you save stamina for the next races.

There are probably more examples of forfeiting in sports and competitive gaming.

[griffin1987]

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"?

There are extenuating circumstances ("mildernde umstände") in law and forms of provocation are in fact part of these. So yes, you will get less of a punishment if you can prove that you were being provoked.


Also the analogy to football is terrible as it is a time-based game. You can see that in professional (and non-professional) league of legends it does happen that teams surrender before the nexus is destroyed, when they think they don't have a chance any more (their surrender vote is similar to the BT one). In professional (and also non-professional) Starcraft it is common practice to leave the game before every building is destroyed.

In sports like cycling, running, or cross-country skiing it is common not to finish a race when you are too far behind, so you save stamina for the next races.

There are probably more examples of forfeiting in sports and competitive gaming.

Thank you for the "extenuating circumstances", that was what I was actually looking for. As far as I know provocation is not being taken into account anymore in europe at least, since they removed the "heat of the passion" paragraphs, but I don't want to get into discussing law here so let's just put the law thing aside.

Also, before I write anything else: Thank you for staying objective with your arguments.

About the analogy: Leaving is something different than -giveup. I'm okay with someone leaving if they don't want to play anymore. So your starcraft example just undermines that And regarding sports: Your examples aren't better, as all of these are about reaching a target in the shortest possible time, and btanks is not a race. I guess paintball would be an appropriate example, but then again I don't have any experience there about people giving up or not, so I can't say much about that. But if you look at the last btanks tournament where there were games with a 1,5h limit then we're back to football (just to clarify: I'm talking about what britain would call soccer), because in that case it's both fixed time and about who gets more points in the alloted time.

Anyway, I would welcome it if you put your (really good I think) arguments to my threads regarding removing the -giveup option, as I think they're more fitting there. Thanks

Edit: There's also a difference between there still being a chance to win, which is ALWAYS the case in BT (there are replays on the forum of winning with the main building at less than 5% of hp), and it being physically impossible to win anymore (e.g. if you were behind in a shooter by 10 kills and the remaining time were 5 seconds with only 8 players in the game and a respawn time of 10 seconds, then it would be physically/mathematically impossible to win anymore), so not every other game is a good/appropriate analogy (though, I must admit, league of legends is a very good one)

Edit2: https://www.google.at/search?q=league+of+legends+giveup most of the results for me are about "you should not give up", don't know about you (thanks to google personalized results), so at least from the outside it seems to me that there are actually many people with LoL who aren't happy with the giveup either.

[UnifiedDoom]

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?

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?)

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.

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")

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.

[griffin1987]

1. Just because you end a game you don't start the next immediately. By ending a game you just swap playing with waiting for the next to start, and at least for me waiting is not nearly as fun as playing, and even playing the first 25 minutes over and over again is, imho, not as fun as playing a game till the end, however long that may take.

2. If you take not taking a specific action and having a different oppinion than others (4 out of 10 people by the way - don't you think the other team would've prefered playing till the end as well?) as provocative, then about everything you do or do not in live is provocative.

3. I was never taking anything as excuse, I just wanted to end this discussion in a way so it is clear that I wasn't kicking trahtorist because of some personal issue with him. And as I'm no magician, I don't know if he ever reads the forum or not, or maybe even posts under a different username.

4. I took the action not out of an emotional state, but because of logic which told me it would be totally okay, because a ban request for something I found to be very similar (linked request by gozo) was rejected, and also people always telling me that they think staying in a game after typing -giveup is wasting their time. If you follow that train of thought, it was perfectly logical to me to issue a kick vote. Of course there was also an emotional component involved which led me to even care about that, but then again no human ever decides anything without emotion being involved, and thus I'd call it human to follow emotions to certain degree. Also, I did neither call anyone names ("flame"), nor did I try to manipulate the game (e.g. bomb my own base), but of course you're free to call me whatever you like

5. I think you either misunderstood me there or just have the opposite oppinion. I can't say for sure, so I'll try to reword it in a hopefully easier to understand way: I think for judgement to be fair, the judging party should not be involved in what happened, otherwise there would be what is commonly called a conflict of interest. In the case of this game, eSVau was part of the game, thus - in my oppinion - he should not be allowed to directly judge it.

And again regarding background information: I DO have 2 hostbots which I had running for nearly 2 years, and just stopped because I didn't want to draw too many people from the league bots (no reason to run additional bots if it only means that games take longer to start). And I also had a running forum for clan BTNK as well as a stats database (though without elo, as it was before the scoring system was introduced to bt). Also, you should think about the word "FREE" again, as there are things which are worth more than a 5-30 euro per month hosting service (otherwise people wouldn't be on the wall about things like PRISM, which doesn't cost most of them a single cent ...). Also I think you misunderstood what I said - it wasn't meant as a threat, but telling eSVau that if he doesn't want to continue what he is doing, he shouldn't, as I think no one should do anything they don't want if one can help it. We aren't living in slavery, after all.


---

Anyway, there are of course different oppinions, but as it seems this all is leading kinda nowhere, I won't be posting anything anymore in here, but feel free to continue without me.

Good luck & have fun playing games

[Tez.Sick]

We should ban some more people for "weird behavior" = finally some action in forum

next time please less text and more flame/insult in thread!

[gozo1985]

I said it could be seen "idiot behavior" because (in gozo's case) he was going against the opinion of HIS ENTIRE TEAM.

Ok then its totally legal to kick someone if he types -giveup becouse all others didnt and have a different opinion...
Same as if someone starts a kickvote and nobody votes -yes... we can kick the voter just becouse we all think the kickvote before was not "our" opinion...

seriously... should we start acting like that just becouse "the entire team has an opinion"? these are thoughts which started wars! just to say something a bit histrionic.

[FadmU]

Just got baned without reason, i think i can Call it the same Title.
another thing, ADM if you cant play without act like mafia, pls just be ADmin do not play. I alway got baned by post of enemies on game who unfortunelly play in my same team some times. your "friends" say ban him so than the small dog have to do what they said?
how old are you Tez, esva? serious it getting annoying, this stuped ban war need to stop

---

how we gonna have funny if we must play like they want, and we cant try like they say "stuped build" for funny without get baned, JESUS HOW MANY New ACC i have to remake because Esvau and Tez.if i see them there on ranked game
ill make sure do not join, especially when they friends MAFIA, carizma, Daminato, el_pa be there

[El_Polacco]

how we gonna have funny if we must play like they want, and we cant try like they say "stuped build" for funny without get baned, JESUS HOW MANY New ACC i have to remake because Esvau and Tez.if i see them there on ranked game
ill make sure do not join, especially when they friends MAFIA, carizma, Daminato, el_pa be there

http://btanks.net/forum/showthread.php?t...8#pid38738 Is tinker with orbital a good build . You can just whine and pretend your innocence on this forum ? To practise another interesting builds more suitable is ranked than qualify Isn't it ?

[FadmU]

chech my score, check yours, tinker fighter, no pussying around, i dont need tank to win a game, play tank is too easy, you just pissed cos i powned you manytimes with a simple tinker just to prove, i dont need a blood noob tank to have funny for myself. but if you need tank, and spell is your problem. How i said if we cant play tinker, so ***** remove from map.