The Incompetency of STA.... [Archive]

View Full Version : The Incompetency of STA....

LittleAndroidMan

August 27th, 2006, 05:43 PM

First off, let me start by saying that my clan (SR) was wrongly placed in Gold. We perhaps have the skill, but work horribly as a team. It is beyond me why we were placed in Gold in the first place.

So after losing to .tkd, our first match, we figured it was a fluke. Then we lose to |3eer, and figured we just weren't cut out for Gold. So me and several clan members voice our opinions in the STA5v5 IRC channel, to get protocol thrown in our faces. (You have to lose 4 matches prior to getting bumped, despite the magnitude of rapage.)

Is it our fault we were placed in Gold? No. We simply won 2 matches in the Screening Ladder, and were Gold.

Now, just this past week, we played NsXg, and I had a technicality I had an issue with, and so naturally, my first instinct was to contact my Division admin, who would be the most able one to diagnose the problem. Turns out, he is on vacation, and I fail to see where any notification is posted on the STA website, or IRC channel. So now, that I waited after 24 hours, it's a 'technical forfeit', even though I voiced my concerns in the IRC channel MINUTES after the match was over.

LittleAndroidMan

August 27th, 2006, 05:46 PM

And sure, it's easy to PM another admin, but this was a division-specific question, coupled along with my voicing of my concerns in the public channel after the match, in which all admins except mine were present.

_loche

August 27th, 2006, 05:59 PM

cry

Cereal_Spiller`

August 27th, 2006, 06:15 PM

PM another admin. Trust me if you're gonna wait for one specific admin you might as well not even bother. They are people too, they cannot always be seated infront of their PC's.

bergenhell

August 27th, 2006, 06:33 PM

If you really want to get things accomplished, search berg + tfl in the cesspool. Get a nice tall glass of your favorite beverage, pen, paper, and start taking notes.

Jarek

August 27th, 2006, 06:42 PM

Thats not that bad, at least you didn't get bumped up to 1a after losing 2 in a row only to face TDA your first match.

Zogo

August 27th, 2006, 09:51 PM

I'm pretty sure you can sue them..

-Dirby-

August 27th, 2006, 10:01 PM

cry
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

Thrash

August 27th, 2006, 10:12 PM

I don't know why you'd say "cry"

He has a legitimate complaint, and he's being reasonable in venting his problem here...

-Dirby-

August 27th, 2006, 10:14 PM

I don't know why you'd say "cry"

He has a legitimate complaint, and he's being reasonable in venting his problem here...
because i love you.

catman

August 27th, 2006, 10:16 PM

oh ihl...

AGT-Shady

August 27th, 2006, 10:19 PM

I don't know why you'd say "cry"

He has a legitimate complaint, and he's being reasonable in venting his problem here...

If this post were on the captain's forum or the STA 5v5 forum sure, or if he had posted there and the admins were being assholes or something I'd agree with ya. But no, it's not reasonable to expect that any request made here will be addressed by league admins, it's much more of a "cry" about what happened to me and my clan.

Sounds like a shitty deal, but shitty deals in STA 5v5 are not addressed here, c'mon now.........

BoSlim

August 27th, 2006, 10:20 PM

Fusion

August 27th, 2006, 10:28 PM

STA 5v5 is run by TFCC. That is why.

-=PoW=-Crimmy

August 28th, 2006, 12:51 AM

STA 5v5 is run by TFCC. That is why.
yea get used to bad decisions

Loser

August 28th, 2006, 05:45 AM

I don't know why you wouldn't have pmed another admin to be honest, its really not that tough. Its not as if admins signed a contract in which they can't go on vacation. I'm in HLHS and we had 2 clans in STA 5v5 for about 2-3 months, and when one team got to Plat, the other couldn't win in Bronze. The Bronze team gave it up, and they merged back with the Plat team. Then a few of the guys on our plat team left, and we basically were back to the Silver team we started with. We tried to just drop down to silver but they wouldn't let us so we just had to lose for a couple months in order to be back where we are now in Silver.

Moral of the story is the admins aren't perfect in picking where clans belong and can't just do favors for every clan, if they did that then everyone would just lose a couple matches, complain, and get moved down a division just so they could win. If you feel like your clan belongs in Silver, then just try your best, and when they see you lose 1 or 2 more, you'll be in Silver. If your clan can't stick it out or handle losing 4 matches in a row, then you need to question the character and dedication of the people in your clan, including yourself.

i was in HLHS while this was going on. we had a bunch of people and nobody was getting enough playing time, so two HLHS clans were created. one team was defined as 'competitive', and and the other was 'for fun'. everybody in HLHS picked which team they wanted to be in, and off we went.

the competitive team started from silver and went roaring through silver, gold, and into platinum, where the bubble burst on this rock called MoC. the uber 1337 players couldn't handle losing (rather badly, if i recall) and went off to greener pastures.

meanwhile, the for fun team went through the screening ladder and ended up in bronze. i don't recall the for fun team winning a match. ever. after 3 months or so, with the competitive team not having enough people to field 5 players regularly and the for fun team having the same problem, HLHS dropped the for fun team altogether and we all ended up with pretty much the same team we had originally, which was a medium silver team.

except we were in platinum. with a silver team. weeeee?

Match ID: 11019
Home Clan: Ready For Lead, [R4L]**
Away Clan: Half Life Hit Squad, [HLHS]
For Division: Platinum
Match Type: Normal
Match Parameters:
- Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2006
- Time: 9:30 PM EST
- Map: congestus
- Players per Team: 5

Match Winner: Ready For Lead, [R4L]**
Win Type: Normal
Scores:
- Round 1: Home: 320, Away: 110
- Round 2: Home: 320, Away: 120
- Overtime Round: Home: N/A, Away: N/A
- Totals: Home: 640, Away: 230
Notes:

---- RESULT: LOSS ----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------- MATCH 213 ----
Match ID: 11070
Home Clan: ZooMass, -ZM-*
Away Clan: Half Life Hit Squad, [HLHS]
For Division: Platinum
Match Type: Normal
Match Parameters:
- Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
- Time: 9:30 PM EST
- Map: haste
- Players per Team: 5

Match Winner: Half Life Hit Squad, [HLHS]
Win Type: Normal
Scores:
- Round 1: Home: 100, Away: 260
- Round 2: Home: 40, Away: 200
- Overtime Round: Home: N/A, Away: N/A
- Totals: Home: 140, Away: 460
Notes:

---- RESULT: WIN -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------- MATCH 214 ----
Match ID: 11095
Home Clan: MoC, -[MoC]-**
Away Clan: Half Life Hit Squad, [HLHS]
For Division: Platinum
Match Type: Normal
Match Parameters:
- Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2006
- Time: 9:30 PM EST
- Map: haste
- Players per Team: 5

Match Winner: MoC, -[MoC]-**
Win Type: Normal
Scores:
- Round 1: Home: 380, Away: 10
- Round 2: Home: 380, Away: 100
- Overtime Round: Home: N/A, Away: N/A
- Totals: Home: 760, Away: 110
Notes:

---- RESULT: LOSS ----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------- MATCH 215 ----
Match ID: 11118
Home Clan: tell The Truth, |tTt|*
Away Clan: Half Life Hit Squad, [HLHS]
For Division: Platinum
Match Type: Normal
Match Parameters:
- Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2006
- Time: 9:30 PM EST
- Map: fry_morfort
- Players per Team: 5

Match Winner: tell The Truth, |tTt|*
Win Type: Normal
Scores:
- Round 1: Home: 250, Away: 50
- Round 2: Home: 330, Away: 60
- Overtime Round: Home: N/A, Away: N/A
- Totals: Home: 580, Away: 110
Notes:

---- RESULT: LOSS ----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------- MATCH 216 ----
Match ID: 11166
Home Clan: Half Life Hit Squad, [HLHS]
Away Clan: Circumflex, ^***
For Division: Platinum
Match Type: Normal
Match Parameters:
- Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2006
- Time: 9:30 PM EST
- Map: fry_morfort
- Players per Team: 5

Match Winner: Circumflex, ^***
Win Type: Normal
Scores:
- Round 1: Home: 10, Away: 110
- Round 2: Home: 70, Away: 170
- Overtime Round: Home: N/A, Away: N/A
- Totals: Home: 80, Away: 280
Notes:

HLHS went up like a rocket, and down like a stone (the ride up was more fun). the clan repeatedly asked to be moved down, saying we weren't competitive in platinum and really couldn't hang in gold. the 5v5 admins pointed to the rules, which everybody has to deal with (including the admins), and HLHS took our lumps. a lot of lumps. for months.

and HLHS is now back in silver, doing their best just like always. they're good folks, and i'm proud to say i played with them for about a year and a half.

and the point of this long winded diatribe is that the HLHS team in question contain the 5v5 co-head admin (cptbucky) and the 5v5 bronze admin (me). HLHS had to follow the rules, just like everybody else does.

why should your team be different.?

Fornaught

August 28th, 2006, 07:28 AM

If this post were on the captain's forum ...
STA 5vs5 doesnt have a captains forum, so it is missing out on a very good means of communication between clan captains and admins.

Thrash

August 28th, 2006, 08:35 AM

But no, it's not reasonable to expect that any request made here will be addressed by league admins, it's much more of a "cry" about what happened to me and my clan.

Sounds like a shitty deal, but shitty deals in STA 5v5 are not addressed here, c'mon now.........

Oh shutup, this response comes up any time anyone addresses a league issue on Catacombs. It's getting old fast. Yes there are league forums, and yes that is probably where one should go to get an appropriate response. But can you really expect everyone to have enough faith after continuous problems plague most kinds of IRC contact. I wasn't arguing he was doing the right thing to get help, in fact he hasn't tried to get the leagues to do anything in that post. He was voicing his frustrations, and he wasn't acting like a whiner in doing so.

Magus

August 28th, 2006, 09:33 AM

5v5 is throwaway anyhow

AGT-Shady

August 28th, 2006, 10:58 AM

Oh shutup, this response comes up any time anyone addresses a league issue on Catacombs. It's getting old fast. Yes there are league forums, and yes that is probably where one should go to get an appropriate response. But can you really expect everyone to have enough faith after continuous problems plague most kinds of IRC contact. I wasn't arguing he was doing the right thing to get help, in fact he hasn't tried to get the leagues to do anything in that post. He was voicing his frustrations, and he wasn't acting like a whiner in doing so.

No YOU shutup! ;)

How is voicing your frustration on a MB that can enact nothing to aleviate said frustrations anything more than a "cry" exactly? It's the same shit berg had been doing in the STA captain's forum for months crying about his shitty deal in TFL, this guy is just doing it with less profanities.

MoonGuardian

August 28th, 2006, 02:07 PM

two matches in one division is not enough of a "oh we don't belong here"
I don't care how bad you lost by, perhaps you need to take time to get your "skilled" team, to work together so that you can continue to play, where you belong.

don't blame a league for you being too lazy to pm another admin. And whatever Technicallity it was, I'm almost positive any other division admin could have handled it for you... There is not technical differences between divisions...

But, you should have posted on the STA TFC forum first.. Not here. Or spoken with an admin. Just posting on here brings attention to you, and makes a lot of us shake our heads at you...

Telos

August 28th, 2006, 02:14 PM

Sahdy maybe its because you have been a captain for so long, but often times people other than captains can have good input and consideration when looking at a thread. So rather than say this is crying, how about as looking at it as a public discussion, which is what it would be if you removed all the crying about crying.

Pro

August 28th, 2006, 02:38 PM

At least you didn't have a win get overturned by MassacrE who DQed all our caps round 2 in a match he played in.

Yes, MassacrE aka Boost was a STA5v5 dispute admin a few years back.

What a joke.

bergenhell

August 28th, 2006, 03:37 PM

No YOU shutup! ;)

How is voicing your frustration on a MB that can enact nothing to aleviate said frustrations anything more than a "cry" exactly? It's the same shit berg had been doing in the STA captain's forum for months crying about his shitty deal in TFL, this guy is just doing it with less profanities.

OK I get it you don't like me.

But don't make up shit about me please. I started ONE thread in an attempt to contact captains only because of people like you who think everything online is typed up with tears falling onto a keyboard. I think the thread was deleted after a few days anyways.

Seriously kid your deal with me is getting old. SORRY FOR BEATING YOUR CLAN IN UGC GOSH

Milosenpotion

August 28th, 2006, 04:43 PM

STA9v9 is usually great and very easy to deal with. STA5v5 is complete shit though...I dunno what's going on over there but it's been the worst-ran league in TFC for half a decade now.

Co-Head Admin Bookrat --
Co-Head Admin Bucky33 --
Platinum Admin Leviathan --
Gold Admin Sir ihlatrebon --
Silver Admin NazgulEC --
Bronze Admin Loser --
Screening Ladder Admin Sir ihlatrebon --
Dispute Admin DammeT[UA] --
Dispute Admin NazgulEC --
Dispute Admin Chips --

The 10 of you need to step it up as a unit by the time FF/TF2 come out, because when the community is reset, quality of the league is going to play a larger role in determining popularity than is true now.

exr8eD

August 28th, 2006, 10:35 PM

I'm pretty sure you can sue them..
lol

AGT-Shady

August 28th, 2006, 11:35 PM

OK I get it you don't like me.

But don't make up shit about me please. I started ONE thread in an attempt to contact captains only because of people like you who think everything online is typed up with tears falling onto a keyboard. I think the thread was deleted after a few days anyways.

Seriously kid your deal with me is getting old. SORRY FOR BEATING YOUR CLAN IN UGC GOSH

Haha captain sensitive, liking you has nothong to do with it, you were just posting much like this guy was, but it was in the STA forum about your TFL predicament, and the admin loocked it after one post saying something along the lines of "keep your TFL grievance out of STA, it has nothing to do with this league." And are you really delusional enough to call me kid? ;)

Telos as Thrash pointed out, this isn't a discussion, it's a complaint. He's not asking for opinions, he's not asking for direction or guidance, and he hasn't done the one thing that can actually help his scenario, so I fail to see how it qualifies as a "discussion". If he were wronged trying to talk to the admins, like Berg was in the beginning, I could see taking it to the public boards to garner support, like berg did in the beginning, but to bring it here and NOT there is pointless and nothing but a cry IMO.

Eternal

August 28th, 2006, 11:53 PM

So after losing to .tkd, our first match, we figured it was a fluke.

Ouch.... losing to us is not a fluke. We give warm hugs after we beat people. Cherb loves doing that for us :).

bergenhell

August 29th, 2006, 12:02 AM

Haha captain sensitive, liking you has nothong to do with it, you were just posting much like this guy was, but it was in the STA forum about your TFL predicament, and the admin loocked it after one post saying something along the lines of "keep your TFL grievance out of STA, it has nothing to do with this league." And are you really delusional enough to call me kid? ;)

Telos as Thrash pointed out, this isn't a discussion, it's a complaint. He's not asking for opinions, he's not asking for direction or guidance, and he hasn't done the one thing that can actually help his scenario, so I fail to see how it qualifies as a "discussion". If he were wronged trying to talk to the admins, like Berg was in the beginning, I could see taking it to the public boards to garner support, like berg did in the beginning, but to bring it here and NOT there is pointless and nothing but a cry IMO.

me... sensitive..... lOLF

DISCOANI

August 29th, 2006, 12:27 AM

cry cause its the internet, and its a game, on the internets

ExisT

August 29th, 2006, 12:51 AM

I fail to see how the leadership of STA 5v5 is in any way related to TFCC besides bookrat being in TFCC. He is the only one that has ANYTHING to do with the league.

The rest of us just play in it. Bookrat doesn't discuss STA matters with us and we don't ask.

And, for the record, TFCC is an extremely well-run clan. Hands down the best I've been in as far as organization goes. We may not be playing the best at the moment but we have a LOT of fun and we all get along with each other.

Bookrat

August 29th, 2006, 02:15 AM

Just let it go, ExisT. There's an old saying: when you wrassle with a pig, the pig has all the fun and all you get is dirty.

Their lack of substantive, intelligent, or constructive contributions to the thread is made obvious by the speed at which they resorted to ad hominem attacks against the clan to which I belong. Besides... they also destroy their own argument by forgetting completely that Battousai -- the co-admin of the 'usually great and very easy to deal with' 9v9 TFC league against which 5v5 is but a pale shadow -- is also a member of TFCC... ;)

(Sorry for dragging you into this, Batts... just thought it was funny.)

Milosenpotion

August 29th, 2006, 02:50 AM

Especially when the person who said that never even mentioned TFCC :( Batt is probably the best admin in NA TFC imo.

MoonGuardian

August 29th, 2006, 05:41 PM

Book > *

hahaha. much <3 if he sees this post, im going to get a PM saying "why arn't you doing your work"

See Book mad. See Moon run.

Traitorious

August 29th, 2006, 06:15 PM

sta is the worst of the active leagues.

Bookrat

August 29th, 2006, 07:05 PM

Especially when the person who said that never even mentioned TFCC
That's true, Milos; I was lumping all the ad hominem attacks together.

Addressing what you, specifically, had to say; you have to admit that it really wasn't very helpful. "Get your act together, because you're complete shit and have been for the last five years," is a bretty broad brush to wield, and it really doesn't provide much in the way of concrete suggestions, or models for improvement, now does it?

I know you're sore because your clan recently lost a dispute in STA 5v, so maybe you weren't trying to be helpful but just wanted to sling a little mud. I sort of expect people to be a little more ... substantive in this forum than in the Cesspool, though. Perhaps that's overly optimistic/idealistic of me.

If you (or any of the others who contributed only personal attacks) have any specific ideas rather than just a general 'get with it, because you suck!' then I'd be happy to discuss them -- either here, or in e-mail, or in a real-time discussion medium.

ODAY

August 29th, 2006, 07:18 PM

i was in HLHS while this was going on. we had a bunch of people and nobody was getting enough playing time, so two HLHS clans were created. one team was defined as 'competitive', and and the other was 'for fun'. everybody in HLHS picked which team they wanted to be in, and off we went.

the competitive team started from silver and went roaring through silver, gold, and into platinum, where the bubble burst on this rock called MoC. the uber 1337 players couldn't handle losing (rather badly, if i recall) and went off to greener pastures.

meanwhile, the for fun team went through the screening ladder and ended up in bronze. i don't recall the for fun team winning a match. ever. after 3 months or so, with the competitive team not having enough people to field 5 players regularly and the for fun team having the same problem, HLHS dropped the for fun team altogether and we all ended up with pretty much the same team we had originally, which was a medium silver team.

except we were in platinum. with a silver team. weeeee?

HLHS went up like a rocket, and down like a stone (the ride up was more fun). the clan repeatedly asked to be moved down, saying we weren't competitive in platinum and really couldn't hang in gold. the 5v5 admins pointed to the rules, which everybody has to deal with (including the admins), and HLHS took our lumps. a lot of lumps. for months.

and HLHS is now back in silver, doing their best just like always. they're good folks, and i'm proud to say i played with them for about a year and a half.

and the point of this long winded diatribe is that the HLHS team in question contain the 5v5 co-head admin (cptbucky) and the 5v5 bronze admin (me). HLHS had to follow the rules, just like everybody else does.

why should your team be different.?

cause its a stupid fucking rule... if you get raped by the worst team ina div ... then your going to get owned by the rest... god .. if i want to request to be moved down .. why shouldent it happen?... obviously i want to play as high in the league as i can ...

Loser

August 29th, 2006, 07:50 PM

cause its a stupid fucking rule... if you get raped by the worst team ina div ... then your going to get owned by the rest... god .. if i want to request to be moved down .. why shouldent it happen?... obviously i want to play as high in the league as i can ...

like most rules in any league, the STA 5v5 rules on clan movement are based upon (often bitter) experience. while i'm glad you wish to play as high in the league as you can, what i think you really mean is that you wish to play as high in the league as you can with a reasonable expectation of being able to win on any given tuesday. this is as it should be.

you may perhaps be surprised, however, on the number of teams that enter the league with the intent of sandbagging their way into a lower division so they can rape, pillage, and act like jackasses to their opponents. amazingly enough, the lower ranked teams don't enjoy this activity. once the sandbagging team worked its way into a division where they couldn't win all the time, the team would fold, reform, and the process would repeat.

the clan movement rules, as well as the creation of the screening ladder concept in STA, have evolved to limit sandbagging.

EDIT: also, some teams are great on some maps and not so great on others. the fact that any team loses badly on a given map doesn't mean they won't do well against the same opponent on a different map.

the four weeks minimum before a team can be moved down accounts for both sandbagging and poor map strategy/tactics/whatever.

and if a team can't handle four losses, i quote boslim: "If your clan can't stick it out or handle losing 4 matches in a row, then you need to question the character and dedication of the people in your clan, including yourself."

Milosenpotion

August 29th, 2006, 08:11 PM

That's fine with me. I didn't give suggestions because it seems the community has been trying to do that with STA5v5 for years and it still appears that STA5v5 hasn't changed.
If there's anything that makes me disappointed in a league it's when a match is overturned or nullified over something stupid. It used to happen much more often. For example: UGC had a history of overturning matches for close to no OvO, even in championship matches (or so I've heard)...now UGC doesn't overturn or nullify matches unless the panalties were significant enough to warrant such action. Significance is of course an opinion, but that's where the league has to listen to the community and find a balance of what warrants certain punishments in order to minimize disfatisfaction with the league. UGC did this; they listened to the community and learned what was generally thought of as "enough".
I wanted you to post our dispute in that other thread, but you seemed to miss my request or chose to ignore it, so I'll cover it in here. I read your email with details on the ovo violations by iE during the 2 rounds, and it's pretty rediculous how clean that match was to get overturned. From your email:

ROUND ONE (iE red, 2L blue)
06:14 - BlackHand (red scout) lands at tunnel entrance. As he lands, he turns and sees a blue flag-carrying scout exiting red base. BlackHand retraces his path along the walkways and shoots scout four times until he dies and the flag drops in the pit.
10:48 - MILOS exits respawn, and gets hit by blue scout's conc. (unintentional, I'd guess.) He turns and shoots at scout once.
18:56 - BlackHand (red scout) exits spawn, sees red flag dropped right there. Turns around and drops two sets of caltrops right on top of the flag, then exits base.
19:01 - MILOS exits spawn, flag dropped in RR (surrounded by BlackHand's caltrops...) Sees incoming medic and shoots at him *before* he touches the flag.
19:22 - BlackHand (red scout) exits spawn, flag still there. Drops two more sets of caltrops on the flag, then suicides
19:25 - MILOS exits spawn, sees blue medic in RR fighting red demo and HWG. MILOS shoots him once in the back. (blue medic is not carrying flag.)
29:39 - Blue flag being carried out of blue base by BlackHand. Milos is already in blue (enemy) base; he goes to batts in an apparent attempt to see if he can help cap the flag, as a soldier and demo are in yard. While looking there, a blue scout can be seen exiting red (iE) base with red flag. MILOS exits batts to yard, and shoots twice at scout, killing him. iE Flag drops into pit, unrecoverable.
31:03 - BlackHand (red scout) exits spawn; turns to look back into base, primes conc, runs out of base and discards it. Drops to walkways and throws another conc at flag-carrying blue scout in an attempt to pit the flag. (Attempt fails humorously; conc blows dropping scout back up onto walkways. ) The actions to this point were legal, as BlackHand did not alter his course and was attacking an outgoing medic. However: BlackHand then drops into the pit himself and attempts to use a third conc to knock the scout off the walkways. It fails, but it does delay him long enough for iE soldier to get to yard. 2L settles for a 10-point cap as the round is almost over.

Conclusion:
- O vs. O instances were sporadic, and negligible.
- The instances where one member or another of the iE offense acted as a 4th defender were blatant. The rules specifically warn that things like putting caltrops on a downed flag will result in the offense member being counted as a defender, and the instances at 6:14 and 29:39 are about as flagrant as they come.
What I had counted:
-successful ovo
-unsuccessful ovo
-caltrop ovo
-unsuccessful ovo
-caltrop ovo
-successful ovo
-successful ovo
-conc ovo (a first)
So added all up, thats 2 unsuccessful ovo, 3 successful ovo, 2 caltrop ovo, and 1 conc ovo. I'll look at the 3 successful ovo since it's the most important imo:
Under these rules, it is legal to shoot at an outgoing enemy offense player who is carrying the flag, since the rules deal with 'incoming enemies' only... as long as you do not significantly alter your route in order to do so, or stop to defend the flag if it is dropped.
I can't speak for BH, but the impression I got from him on that first successful ovo is that he was on his way to thier base and hit the first conced shotty of his career to pit the flag...there were jokes about this on ventrilo when it happened.
The second successful ovo is a valid rule breaker.
The third one isn't breaking the rules since I was going to help with the flag. I don't know if you noticed this, but BH lost like the last 5 flags in a row in the pit...so I made sure to follow him out because I didn't want another flag to get pitted. Thier D would chase out to the yard to try to get him to pit it and were very successful at doing so. I was altering my route in order to stop this from occuring. Therefore my path was not altered in order to ovo. It was altered to continue an offensive objective. Their enemy O coming towards me and getting killed is legal as it was an "incoming flag carrier". Legal.

Caltrop ovo consisted of 4 sets of caltrops on 2 runs (out of his probably 70-80?) which lasted probably a total of 40ish seconds.
Conc ovo is almost as laughable as caltrop ovo. I don't know if it's even called ovo as it does no damage and I've never seen it listed as rule breaking in any league. Ever.

So what we're looking at is 1 legit, rule-breaking, normal ovo(19:25); 2 caltrop ovo; and 1 attempt to knock the enemy into pit with a conc...in 30 minutes. Here's where my arguement finally comes into place: how is this excessive? More specifically, how is this excessive enough to warrant a clan strike? suspension? OVERTURNING THE MATCH? I can guarantee you if you polled the community on whether or not that all is excessive enough for those rulings, about the only people that would agree are on your staff, which baffles me. This couldn't have been unanimous amongst you guys I have more faith in admins than that. What do you guys consider excessive?

Edy

August 29th, 2006, 08:22 PM

MAX DEFENSE

MAX DEFENSE

MAX DEFENSE

NOT OVO

NOT OVO

NOT OVO

Conclusion:
- O vs. O instances were sporadic, and negligible.
- The instances where one member or another of the iE offense acted as a 4th defender were blatant. The rules specifically warn that things like putting caltrops on a downed flag will result in the offense member being counted as a defender, and the instances at 6:14 and 29:39 are about as flagrant as they come.

DKSJFKSFJLDHKFD

Tone-Loc

August 29th, 2006, 08:26 PM

So all this over a 5v5 division of STA? Can we rename this thread to unclude 5v5? So I know to ignore it... :D

Loser

August 29th, 2006, 08:28 PM

Conclusion:
- O vs. O instances were sporadic, and negligible.
- The instances where one member or another of the iE offense acted as a 4th defender were blatant. The rules specifically warn that things like putting caltrops on a downed flag will result in the offense member being counted as a defender, and the instances at 6:14 and 29:39 are about as flagrant as they come.

let me quote part of the quoted part again:

- O vs. O instances were sporadic, and negligible.

we agreed with you milos, the ovo was negligible and no action was taken as a result of it.

there were several instances where you and/or blackhand stopped to defend your flag. this cost you the match, not the negligible ovo.

Milosenpotion

August 29th, 2006, 08:32 PM

Did you read what I said about those parts? Thus the whole 1 legit, regular rule break.

Edy

August 29th, 2006, 09:34 PM

1 rule break is still a rule break milos, theres no way around that.

Fornaught

August 29th, 2006, 10:23 PM

So what we're looking at is 1 legit, rule-breaking, normal ovo(19:25); 2 caltrop ovo; and 1 attempt to knock the enemy into pit with a conc...in 30 minutes. Here's where my arguement finally comes into place: how is this excessive? More specifically, how is this excessive enough to warrant a clan strike? suspension? OVERTURNING THE MATCH? I can guarantee you if you polled the community on whether or not that all is excessive enough for those rulings, about the only people that would agree are on your staff, which baffles me. This couldn't have been unanimous amongst you guys I have more faith in admins than that. What do you guys consider excessive?

IMO as a clan leader, this particular paragraph is worthy of consideration.

LittleAndroidMan

August 29th, 2006, 11:46 PM

My situation has been handled by Bookrat (Thanks a ton, you revived any faith I originally had in STA) and will hopefully be bumped down after getting raped tonight.

I still think that STA needs to lay off the rules for once, and realize that leagues are for fun--not to be given a hard time over everything. Rules are good, of course, but when you have a clan that is OBVIOUSLY struggling, and is actually trying and uses essentially the same players every week, I think a pardon from the rules should be given. This is the case for my clan. We have the same people play every week, and we typically get raped. It's not like we sand bag, and purposefully lose in Gold so we can move down to Silver and rape them. I think in Silver, we will have a good time against the medium-high Silver clans, and more importantly, will have fun as a team. I don't know how many times I heard tonight, 'This sucks. I can't wait until we're bumped down'. And it's the truth. You can say I'm bitching, or crying, but we've been put through the mill, by clans, and by the league itself. We are living proof that the system can, and will fail.

ODAY

August 29th, 2006, 11:49 PM

it may work for you guys ... but i always thought 5v5 was run very poorly

AGT-Shady

August 30th, 2006, 09:45 AM

It all came to a head with calling the use of a detpack an "exploit", lol.

Bookrat

August 30th, 2006, 04:27 PM

Yes, MassacrE aka Boost was a STA5v5 dispute admin a few years back.

What a joke.

It all came to a head with calling the use of a detpack an "exploit", lol.

I know you're semi-joking, Shady... but Geeze louise, people. Hold a grudge much? You're talking about things from three to five years ago, and which happened under a completely different administration. Bring up things that have been done on my watch, and I will gladly explain/defend/apologize for them... but there's not much I can do about decisions made by people before any of the people currently running things -- including me -- were even on staff.

I didn't give suggestions because it seems the community has been trying to do that with STA5v5 for years and it still appears that STA5v5 hasn't changed.

Hasn't changed? Or hasn't done what you specifically wanted? We get suggestions from all quarters, and there's no possible way to make everyone's dreams come true. That's why I have always -- always -- spoken out in favour of different leagues with different rulesets. If a clan thinks that one league is too restrictive, it's good if there is another where the rules are looser. If a clan thinks the rules are too loose, it's good if another league clamps down more. That way, everyone gets what they want, and everyone knows more of what to expect.

For that reason alone (if not others) it is unfortunate that TFL 5v5 died, and has not been able to get going again. They were on one end of the spectrum of what was allowable, while UGC was on the other, and STA tried to ride the middle. Now, with TFL gone, many people -- including yourself, from the sounds of it -- are trying to push STA towards the TFL model of 'anything goes', when that has never been our stance.

If there's anything that makes me disappointed in a league it's when a match is overturned or nullified over something stupid.
The simple solution to that would be, "Don't do stupid things."

If you persist in doing things that are against the rules of the league, and you get called on them for doing so, then why is it the league that is in the wrong? Take some personal responsibility, Milos.

I wanted you to post our dispute in that other thread, but you seemed to miss my request or chose to ignore it, so I'll cover it in here.
I did not choose to ignore it; I missed the one-line post where you had acquiesced/requested that it be done.

I can see from your analysis that there is some confusion in how/why the ruling was made the way it was. I will take that under consideration, and try to make things more clear in the future so that it is more easily understood. For now, here are the recorded incidents with a more thorough explanation.

(Get some coffee and sit back; this is a long post already, and it just gets longer. :))

ROUND ONE (iE red, 2L blue)

O vs. O violations
10:48 - MILOS exits respawn, and gets hit by blue scout's conc. (unintentional, I'd guess.) He turns and shoots at scout once.
19:01 - MILOS exits spawn, flag dropped in RR (surrounded by BlackHand's caltrops...) Sees incoming medic and shoots at him *before* he touches the flag.
19:25 - MILOS exits spawn, sees blue medic in RR fighting red demo and HWG. MILOS shoots him once in the back. (blue medic is not carrying flag.)

As I wrote in the conclusion, these were sporadic, and negligible. They played no part in the decision to uphold the dispute against you.

4th Defender violations
06:14 - BlackHand (red scout) lands at tunnel entrance. As he lands, he turns and sees a blue flag-carrying scout exiting red base. BlackHand retraces his path along the walkways and shoots scout four times until he dies and the flag drops in the pit.
18:56 - BlackHand (red scout) exits spawn, sees red flag dropped right there. Turns around and drops two sets of caltrops right on top of the flag, then exits base.
19:22 - BlackHand (red scout) exits spawn, flag still there. Drops two more sets of caltrops on the flag, then suicides
29:39 - Blue flag being carried out of blue base by BlackHand. Milos is already in blue (enemy) base; he goes to batts in an apparent attempt to see if he can help cap the flag, as a soldier and demo are in yard. While looking there, a blue scout can be seen exiting red (iE) base with red flag. MILOS exits batts to yard, and shoots twice at scout, killing him. iE Flag drops into pit, unrecoverable.
31:03 - BlackHand (red scout) exits spawn; turns to look back into base, primes conc, runs out of base and discards it. Drops to walkways and throws another conc at flag-carrying blue scout in an attempt to pit the flag. (Attempt fails humorously; conc blows dropping scout back up onto walkways. ) The actions to this point were legal, as BlackHand did not alter his course and was attacking an outgoing medic. However: BlackHand then drops into the pit himself and attempts to use a third conc to knock the scout off the walkways. It fails, but it does delay him long enough for iE soldier to get to yard. 2L settles for a 10-point cap as the round is almost over.

Now, for anyone unfamiliar with the 5v5 rules, here is what you need to know before this dispute can be judged:

G. Max Defense & O vs O
At no point during a match is a clan allowed to have more than three (3) players on defense.

For the purposes of this rule, the following players will be considered as a member of the defense:
...
- an offensive player who stops heading towards the enemy base to follow an enemy player back into his own base (aka 'chasing').
- an offensive player who stops to defend a downed flag anywhere on the map.

These behaviours listed are not banned from STA 5v5 league play, except insofar as they put a clan over the defensive limit.

That last phrase is especially important: You're allowed to potshot, to play D, to do whatever you want if you're on O ... but not if you already have 3 defenders. That's when you run into trouble. Several clans did this on 55, running 2 static defenders, 2 full-time O, and one swing guy whose job it was to double back and protect the flag if it was heading out.

Anyway, getting back to the rules themselves... I grant that not everyone equally good at reading and interpreting rules, which is why there follow several examples on what is and is not legal. This is followed by an over-arcing wrap-up of how the rules will be applied. The bolded sections are done by me for the purposes of this post, to better explain the ruling above.

Example 1: Clan A moves Clan B's flag to the yard. On his way past, an offensive spy from Clan B's stops to drop some gas grenades on the flag. The sole purpose of this behaviour is to damage enemy offense, and to defend a dropped flag, so it would qualify the spy as a defender. If Clan B already had three defenders, this would put them over the Max D limit; if they only had 2 defenders, this would be allowable behaviour.

...

Under these rules, it is legal to shoot at an outgoing enemy offense player who is carrying the flag, since the rules deal with 'incoming enemies' only... as long as you do not significantly alter your route in order to do so, or stop to defend the flag if it is dropped.

So, with all that out of the way, let's look at the 4th Defender incidents, and explain them.
06:14 - Blackhand stops heading towards the enemy base, and turns back towards his own base to kill the flag carrier. Clearly a significant course alteration, and therefore a violation.
18:56 + 19:22 - Dropping caltrops on the flag. This is exactly the same situation described in Example #1. In that example, it qualifies the spy as a 4th defender, and the same logic applies here.
29:39 - Again, a pretty hefty course alteration. Milos, regarding your claim that you were heading out to help Blackhand... I would agree with you (and even noted this) except that you didn't shoot at the defenders. You shot at the enemy offense exclusively, which made you a 4th defender.
31:03 - "Conc ovo is almost as laughable" ... why? The obvious intent is to push someone into the pit and have them die, rendering the flag uncappable. What does it matter whether the instrument of that push is a rocket blast, or a blue pipe, or a frag-grenade... or a conc? You're still trying to kill him, which makes you a (4th) Defender.

So what we're looking at is 1 legit, rule-breaking, normal ovo(19:25); 2 caltrop ovo; and 1 attempt to knock the enemy into pit with a conc...in 30 minutes.
That's where your analysis is incorrect. What we're looking at is 3 O vs. O incidents -- none of which were considered excessive and did did not factor into the decision -- and five violations of the Max D rule. All of the Max D violations were clearly contrary to the rules (as demonstrated), and even a single violation of Max D is theoretically enough for action to be taken. As I wrote in the conclusion, it is the Max D violations that caused the dispute to be upheld.

This couldn't have been unanimous amongst you guys I have more faith in admins than that.
You would be wrong on assumption; it was indeed a unanimous decision among the staff.

What do you guys consider excessive?
Obviously, we did not consider your 3 O vs. O incidents 'excessive', as they were removed from the decision. There is no 'excessive' category for Max D violations, however; either you did, or you didn't. If you did, then action may be taken.

The decision-making process for disputes in 5v5 goes as follows:
1) Were the rules broken?
- If yes, then the dispute is upheld. Go to 2.

2) What action should we take?
- This is where we look at things like the severity of the infraction, whether it made a difference in the outcome of the match, whether it was something done by one player or the whole team, etc.

The general rule is that if a clan won a match, but broke the rules in doing so, the match will be nullified regardless of the score. It doesn't matter if you were up 300-10, and the rules you broke couldn't possibly have made a difference in the outcome... even people who are losing badly have a right to a clean game. If you don't like that poor sportsmanship may cost you your victory... then don't engage in poor sportsmanship. As Mr. Sparkle said in the other thread, "Don't play like children and you won't be treated like them." You don't get to gank your opponents just beause your clan contains demonstrably better players than theirs.

If the actual incidents had an effect on gameplay to the point where the outcome of the match may have been different, then and only then will we reverse the match, and award a win to the disputing clan. In this match, the final difference being less than 2 pit-caps, this the actions causing at least that many caps to be lost. That is why we changed the result to "2L wins by ruling".

Getting back to this ruling specifically... to me, it boils down to this: Was this ruling made in accordance with the posted rules? Was anything in this ruling unforseeable, or unreasonable given that we have stated publicly and in advance (via the rules) exactly how we will render judgement in these situations? I think it was done properly, and so do the rest of the 5v5 admins -- hence the unanimous decision. If you believe otherwise -- that we ruled based on anything other than the rules in effect at the time of the match -- then you've got a reasonable beef. If you just don't like those rules... then that's a different issue. I don't like the posted speed limits on my way to work, but that doesn't mean I get to ignore them.

I'm sure that I'm going to get all sorts of grief for the information contained in this post, and told that I'm a nazi, a fascist, that I'm killing the game with the rules, etc. etc. As Loser said, though, we didn't come up with these out of thin air; this is our best guess at how the majority of people participating in STA TFC 5v5 actually want to play the game. My evidence of this is that 19 of 20 games get played each week (on average) with absolutely no incidents or disputes. If you can present evidence to the contrary, however, and show me that the majority of STA TFC 5v5 clans want something different, then I promise to reconsider.

Slash

August 30th, 2006, 10:05 PM

I would chalk up STA 5v5 as the worse run league I've ever been a part of in any game. There needs to be a serious restructuring of the core philosophy of the league. This isn't just because my clan has been part of disputes and I have a grudge; I thought this long before we were ever disputed.

But while we are on the topic... For the last dispute we lost, it was because of the most absurd "interpretation" of the rules imaginable. Shocking really. I will try to explain it, but I imagine most people won't understand, because it's really that bogus.

Here's what happened. I played Defense in the yard. I rarely if ever crossed the mid-point of the yard, and definitely did not play at or near their front door. However, I did shoot people as they left their base and spammed the shit out of them. But I played defense in the yard. That's all you need to know, noone disputes that.

However, STA 5v5 decided that, and I quote, "played defense at the enemy front door and inside the enemy base" and completely overturned the match results which were a shutout in our favor. Yes, you are reading that right. I was playing defense in the yard, but STA 5v5 says I was playing defense in the enemy base. Their explaination? Because I was doing damage to enemy Offense when THEY were at THEIR front door, that qualifies as me "playing defense" there.

So in other words, if you had a HWG in the yard of mulch trench, on your own side of the map, and he was firing at enemies as they were exiting their base, that HWG, under STA 5v5 "interpretation", would be "playing defense at the enemy front door". Absurd. A Sniper on his own battlements would also be "playing defense at the front door.

Shockingly, under these blatently moronic interpretation of the rules, a blue sniper on the red team's battlements, shooting people in the yard, would be playing "defense in the yard", and thus legal, NOT playing defense in the enemy base, despite the fact he is standing in the other team's base.

This "interpretation" of the rules is nothing short of unbelievable, as I can only assume the admins have never played any online competitive first person shooter in their lives, or they have something against my clan and it's members. Or maybe that can't make the distinction between "things that are legal under the rules, but seem 'lame'" and "things that are illegal under the rules".

To further make my point of such absolute absurdity, I made a graphical presentation to make my point clear:

http://www.slashbunny.com/sta-5v5/

There are no trick questions there.

Leeg

August 30th, 2006, 10:16 PM

STA should probably get some people who have played above the bronze level at some point in TFC to run a few things.

Verty

August 30th, 2006, 10:18 PM

n/a

AGT-Shady

August 30th, 2006, 11:08 PM

I was entirely joking Bookie, I wouldn't hold you responsible for Jer's retardation. :D

Solo

September 7th, 2006, 09:47 AM

Bookie didn't reply to slash and neither did anyone else :(

MoonGuardian

September 7th, 2006, 01:47 PM

k c boo-ya

September 7th, 2006, 01:55 PM

STA should probably get some people who have played above the bronze level at some point in TFC to run a few things.

i agree, top level clanners have generally been the best admins

Bookrat

September 7th, 2006, 01:59 PM

Bookie didn't reply to slash and neither did anyone else :(
Bookie has already replied to Slash/FooM/.the.proddukt twice in email, explaining the ruling the first time, and responding to his appeal of the ruling the second time. But since you asked, and since I did say earlier in this thread, "Bring up things that have been done on my watch, and I will gladly explain/defend/apologize for them," then here goes...

The situation went something like this:
- Match was played.
- Slash's opponents read rules, think Slash broke them.
- Slash's opponents dispute.
- Admins review dispute, agree that Slash broke rules.
- Letter sent to Slash's clan, and opponents explaining how/where rules were broken.
- Slash reads rules.
- Slash doesn't think he broke them.
- Slash appeals ruling. Argues that he never broke the rules, and that admins don't know how to interpret their own rules.
- Admins discuss appeal, spend long time writing long email to further explain the ruling to Slash/FooM/.the.proddukt
- Slash continues arguing that he never broke the rules and that admins don't know how to interpret their own rules.
- Admins throw up their hands and give it up as a lost cause.

The crux of that dispute was this: 5v5 has rules against attacking O before they get out of their base/away from their own front door. Now, as to whether this is a good rule or a bad rule, a necessary rule or a pussy-ass rule... these are not the issue. The point is that the rule is there, visible, in place on the website and it is clearly stated that it is not allowed.

On watching the demo, it could be seen that on many, many occasions (detailed in letter sent on dispute resolution), Slash tossed grenades into the base -- grenades which injured/killed O while they were still in their base. He also shot people before they left their base.

Slash's argument, then and now, was that this shouldn't count, since he was standing in the yard when he threw the grenades. By his own words:

I played Defense in the yard. I rarely if ever crossed the mid-point of the yard, and definitely did not play at or near their front door. However, I did shoot people as they left their base and spammed the shit out of them. But I played defense in the yard.

The map for that evening was fry_morfort, which -- as most people will know -- has a very small yard. This, no doubt, played a big part in the his rationalization. It is easy to stand on your own side of the yard -- heck, with almost with your back against your own base -- and toss a grenade into the enemy's base. They're just that close. Nonetheless, many other matches were played that night where people managed to understand that this was still illegal despite the closeness of the bases, and where no such problems occurred (or, at least, were reported).

Now, I have no doubt that Slash did not feel that he was doing anything wrong -- that, in his mind, because he was standing in the yard, it was all fine, that he was playing Yard D. In this, however, Slash's opinion differed from both his opponents and the admins. As a point of fact, there were many, many times when he engaged enemy O in the yard... but these were all thrown out when considering this dispute. Only the attacking of enemy O before they left their base (or in the immediate vicinity of their own front door) with both direct attacks (shotgun) and spammed grenades that was considered during the judgment. Since it was done to an amount considered 'excessive' by the admins, the dispute was ruled in favour of Slash's opponents.

(I also understand that this is perhaps not how Slash would like the rule to be, but that gets back to whether this is a good/bad/necessary/pussy-ass rule... which isn't the topic of discussion. See my earlier comments (http://forums.thecatacombs.net/showpost.php?p=1404099&postcount=49) on why I wholly support the existence of different leagues with different rulesets.)

This has been explained to Slash (twice now) yet he continues to reject it. There's not much more I can do at this point; in the face of continued accusations that both the people who wrote the rules and the opponents who read them and disputed him are wrong -- essentially, that nobody 'gets it' except him, and everyone else is an idiot -- there really isn't much else to say.

Leeg

September 7th, 2006, 02:39 PM

Leeg=Leg?, you would be suprised of the experience of many staff members.

Just because I found myself a tight bunch of friends/family in a lower division clan, and that is where I will stay, doesn't mean I have no upper level playing experience.

Plus, Captains have say, get your captain to help lead this league. Captain suggestions, ideas, etc are always looked into, and responded too. People need to become active in their leagues more. But just because the 5v5 board doesn't have a captains forum, doesn't stop a captain from talking to an admin, or posting in the general TFC forum with their ideas and suggestions.

Recently just the other night, I had problems comprehending the rules page for 9v9 as far as OT's go. What happens? A discussion ensued, and even now so, changes to the rules to make it more obvious (find things etc) was put into action.

That's interesting, and no, my name is not Leg, it is Leeg. Anyway, I would just like to point out that the sta 5v5 gold admin Sir Ilhatrebon is never around on match nights despite the fact that sta claims admins are always present. I would also point out that this gold admin cannot even bunnyhop and he probably couldn't even name 5 top level tfc clans. Where am I going with this? Well in regards to Slash's post it seems that the rules Bookrat and Loser have placed in STA meet the needs of players that don't want to try. I don't think I've ever played tfc under so many rules, let alone ridiculous rules with the exception of the PFL no bunnyhop honor system which was so well enforced by Solo :P.

As far as gameplay is concerned, I think that these rules need to be looked at closely as to how important or even relevant they are. If a defender is at your front door, do you simply run out there in a straight line and die? I don't think so, kill him, conc over him, go around him. This whole concept of a free pass across the yard to the enemy base has been out there for years and is ultimately crude. The fact is, is that this is a capture the flag game. The offense has to get the flag, the defense can defend it. Assuming we're talking 5v5 here, as long as there are no more than 3 defenders, then they should be able to defend that flag as they see fit. If the enemy offense can't seem to pull the flag, then tough shit, maybe they need to get better or perhaps that defense is just pretty good. No class limits are violated, there is no max D violation, the league should just let teams play. But, I suppose that can't happen. Because STA doesn't want players to have to put effort in on offense, and wants to give them free passes to the enemy base regardless. Claiming that an hw shooting across an entire yard is playing at the front door is complete horseshit. Maybe defenses should just stop following flags bookrat? I guess the "flagroom" should be the only place to defend flags by examining the word itself. Once the flag leaves the flagroom D should just give up and let the offense have a free pass to capture it to go along with their free pass into the base.

I would also like to point out how small this game really is. More people now play HL2DM. That's right head STA admin, more people like to shoot toilets at each other with gravity guns than play tfc. Your Oxford English Dictionary sized rule book is just a bit much. The 5v5 division itself has no need for what I think is 4 divisions? You may as well put all of the clans into one division or split it into 2 divisions at this point. I think that someone needs to take a step back here and look at what all of these rules are doing to an already declining division. Only one 5v5 platinum match last Tuesday because every other team was suspended... how pathetic. I guess we should all just print out the rules and keep them next to our keyboards in our tfc notebooks and quiz each other every Monday night.

Finally, just get some new admins who can relate to higher end game play or cut some rules out. This is too much. Without some of these rules and lesser skilled clans getting by on disputing technicalities things might just be ok. Currently the rules are dictating game play, but it should be the game play that dictates the rules. I could present hundreds of tfc scenarios to explain what teams should do in different situations, but that would be useless. The problem here is that offense players no longer have to try, improvise, or adapt to defenses because the rules have given them too much help. So, if any of this makes sense to you, which I think at least half should, you'll take something away from this post. The most important thing being, get rid of some of these rules, because the league itself is not getting any bigger and certainly is not becomming more fun.

darksoldier

September 7th, 2006, 02:55 PM

Fornaught

September 7th, 2006, 03:25 PM

"The customer is always right" is a motto most service industries understand well. It's meaning and it's implementations go far beyond the obvious.
STA is a service industry. STA needs community goodwill to survive, no league (or admin) is above the need to keep it's customers happy.
This is a motto STA needs to take to heart, and yes I am a STA admin.

janordy

September 7th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Now that is how Old Catacombs posts use to roll.

mizan

September 7th, 2006, 03:31 PM

The problem with the rule that we supposedly infringed is that it interpreted in an unenforceably vague way. In common usage, to play "in" an area
is to physically be there. Not just be able to deal damage to that location. A SG "in the water" on openfire is in the water, not behind the
lasers but able to shoot at the water. I'm willing to bet 90% of people in TFC would agree that to play defense IN a location is to physically
be there. Indeed, I polled the clan leaders from the 5v5 division and most of the responses favored our point of view.

<produkkt|mizan> right, would you say an engy in the yard firing at enemy offense players as they leave thier base's fd is illegal by that rule. yes/no?
<gt|Mashi-Knight> i think that is perfectly legal
<gt|Mashi-Knight> is what im saying
<gt|Mashi-Knight> if hes inside the enemy base
<gt|Mashi-Knight> it shouldnt be allowed

[21:57] <produkkt|mizan> so you would say that where damage is recieved is where the defender is playing, and not his physical presence?
[21:57] <[gr`illo-]away> well, the defender is not at the enemy doorway.. he's at his own doorway
[21:58] <[gr`illo-]away> I say its a shitty rule and should be redone :P brb

[21:19] <produkkt|mizan> how would you interpret XXVI. .E. Questionable Tactics ... "and no playing defense in the enemy base or doorway at all."
[21:19] <produkkt|mizan> would you interpret that to be playing physically in the base/doorway, or causing damage in the doorway, or both?
[21:20] <nekojin> physically being in the base
[21:21] <produkkt|mizan> ok, to be more specific, if you had a yard d as allowed by the rules, you wouldn't interpret that rule as making it illegal for him to shoot an enemy offense player in his
doorway as he leaves his base?
<nekojin> no it seems fine to me as long as the defender himself is in the yard

[21:34] <produkkt|mizan> out of curiosity, how would you interpret XXVI. .E. Questionable Tactics ... "and no playing defense in the enemy base or doorway at all."
[21:34] <produkkt|mizan> would that prohibit someone from being physically in the base/doorway, shooting into the base/doorway, or both?
[21:35] <karms> playing in
[21:35] <karms> shooting in should be fine imo

<miz> http://www.geeksyndicate.com/misc/morfort_bridge.jpg
<myke> bridge/yard

The size of the yard is irrelevant, because the rules never stated a map size or specific maps that have to be played more conservatively.
Also your assertion that the other clan "got" the rule and thus it is clear is flawed since they were grasping at straws.
fL initially accused us of OvO and couldn't quite get it through their heads that he was d.

00:11:36: fattits.fl: stop fucking ovoing our team ng
00:11:48: .das .produkkt ist .krieg: im D
00:11:52: Glue.fL: [i] am gay
00:11:53: Glue.fL: [i] am gay
00:11:53: Glue.fL: [i] am gay
00:11:53: Glue.fL: [i] am gay

00:28:06: fattits.fl: wow if youre gonna o ng stop shooting our o
00:29:50: fattits.fl(TEAM): [soldier] "wtf they have 3 o?"

They also accused us of chophp:
00:24:12: fattits.fl: chop hop much

And just generally broke down:

00:07:57: 13/f/cali/pics/webcam(TEAM): lets just ovo
00:08:03: 13/f/cali/pics/webcam(TEAM): we are loosing either way

00:12:06: 13/f/cali/pics/webcam(TEAM): i am ovoing also

Mind you the OvO/max d violations by their offense were mostly missed by the dispute admin. We didn't complain because we didn't feel it impacted the outcome of the
match, which was a sound defeat 2-0,9-0. However this little statement

<[TFCC]Bookrat> Well, both Bucky and myself signed off on the letter before it was sent, and in this case I happen to have watched the demo and gathered most of the evidence myself.

does make me wonder about the thoroughness of your admin team. Why is an admin that hasn't watched the demo signing off on your decision? What is the point of that, other than to
give it an artificial impression of authority? This impression of a lack of thoroughness is reinforced by an unrelated dispute we just had. During which the dispute admin
missed multiple occasions of max D violations. Some of which were reported with the wrong time(alcohol makes a fool of us all). However had he just watched the enemy offense, it
would have been blatantly obvious. Instead we win our dispute partially based off of an enemy spy coming into our respawn during prematch. No grenades were left behind, and this
did not affect the outcome of the match in any way. Yet you suspended the clan and the player, which is absurd. We never reported it because it didn't matter.

Overall I am a bit dissatisfied with the way things have been done as of late. During my tenure as STA admin I was taught the admins were there
to ensure fair, fun matches for both clans. Not to dole out punishments after secret hearings on minor infractions. Can you explain to me the point of giving out strikes
and suspending a clan for a forfeit is? Now you have 2 clans having no match instead of one. Yes, in the past we had a 3 strike you're out policy but until the 3rd one you never got punished.
Also league admins were required to actually be around during match nights. Disputes were handled immediately, not weeks later. Punishments were reserved for especially gregarious offenses.
I hope you realize that any power your admins wield flows directly from the consent of the governed. And that if you abuse it, it will dry up like a small stream in a drought. I was always
open to suggestion, for STA's sake i hope you are too.

produkkt|mizan

Bookrat

September 7th, 2006, 03:31 PM

sta 5v5 gold admin Sir Ilhatrebon is never around on match nights despite the fact that sta claims admins are always present.
I would be surprised -- stunned, even -- if you could find anyone credible who had ever said that all league admins were around all the time, or even every match night. There are often some admins in the channel, and there are always some on match night. Want a hand? Pipe up, ask for an admin. You'll get help. If you absolutely have to talk to your specific admin, though, and he's not there... then use email. IRC is absolutely the best and fastst if you can find someone around... but nobody pays me to sit and monitor IRC all day. Email is far more reliable, and doesn't require that we both be there at the same time. There's a reason why that method of communication is posted on the site under Staff Contacts.

This whole concept of a free pass across the yard to the enemy base has been out there for years and is ultimately crude.
There is no 'free pass' across the yard in STA TFC 5v5; yard defense is completely allowed.

Most players have, however, indicated that they would appreciate being able to get out of their base without being attacked.

Assuming we're talking 5v5 here, as long as there are no more than 3 defenders, then they should be able to defend that flag as they see fit.
That is exactly the philosophy that TFL has always had -- 'anything goes'. Attack who you want, where you want, with as many people as you want. I wish it still existed, because (as I've said over and over) the idea of different leagues with different rulesets is a good thing; it allows players to find the type of game that best suits them and play there.

That is not now, nor has it ever been the philosophy of STA, though... and even though TFL 5v5 has gone under (and can't seem to get enough people to sign up to make it viable again -- sorry Telos :() that does not mean that STA must change to become it. We are what we are, and what we are has always worked for the majority of clans and people.

Claiming that an hw shooting across an entire yard is playing at the front door is complete horseshit. Maybe defenses should just stop following flags bookrat? I guess the "flagroom" should be the only place to defend flags by examining the word itself. Once the flag leaves the flagroom D should just give up and let the offense have a free pass to capture it to go along with their free pass into the base.
Make up anything you like, Leeg, if you think it will bolster your arguments. The facts remain:
- It wasn't an 'HWG shooting across the yard', it was (by his own words) an Engie emping/grenading the shit out of the doorway from 20 feet away.
- STA TFC 5v5 explicitly allows defenses to follow/defend the flag as far as they want -- into the yard, into the enemy base, even on the enemy cap point if they want.
- There is no 'free pass into the base'. There is, however, a 'free pass' out of your own base. It's unfortnate if that violates your personal sensibilities, Leeg, but even those who play D primarily seem to be able to understand why this is a good thing and respect it.

Finally, just get some new admins who can relate to higher end game play or cut some rules out. This is too much.
This argument always kills me. A (presumably) 'high-end' player says that no 'real' high-end player wants to play under all these rules.

Then who do you think is disputing the gameplay violations?

Admins don't go out spectating matches and hoping someone fucks up so we can bust them. These disputes are brought to us by the same 'high-end' players you claim don't want them.

Clans can always agree to throw any rule (except 'no hacking') out the window. You want 5 fatties? You want to ignore the OvO and Max D rules and allow turtling? You want to allow any amount of mm1 smack-talk? By all means, go right ahead! Bring it up with your captain, who can bring it up with their captain. If you both agree to it, then I guaran-damn-tee to you that I will not honour any disputes based on the rules that you agreed to waive. If I start to see a lot of people agreeing to waive rule X, then I also guaran-damn-tee to you that I will take a good hard look at rule X and see if it is outdated, and even poll the clans to see what the consensus is.

Of course, that would mean a little advance legwork on your part. Plus there's the possibility that you won't be able to get their captain -- or even your captain -- to agree to waive the rules... meaning that maybe the rules aren't quite so universally unpopular as you personally think.

Nah... way easier to bitch on the cats about it, right?

dramling

September 7th, 2006, 03:41 PM

I would also like to point out how small this game really is. More people now play HL2DM. That's right head STA admin, more people like to shoot toilets at each other with gravity guns than play tfc. Your Oxford English Dictionary sized rule book is just a bit much. The 5v5 division itself has no need for what I think is 4 divisions? You may as well put all of the clans into one division or split it into 2 divisions at this point. I think that someone needs to take a step back here and look at what all of these rules are doing to an already declining division. Only one 5v5 platinum match last Tuesday because every other team was suspended... how pathetic. I guess we should all just print out the rules and keep them next to our keyboards in our tfc notebooks and quiz each other every Monday night.
you realize that in every division except platinum there are about 10 teams? silver has the most at about 15 but regardless, a 10 team division is perfectly reasonable. another thing: look at rankings for platinum. every team active (6) has at least one strike, half have 2. if you look at the other divisions there's not nearly the percentage. bronze is about half with any strikes, silver's about a quarter as is gold. so yea, there was only one match because the other 4 clans all had strikes. so is that our fault that they violate the rules and then get punished for it?

Finally, just get some new admins who can relate to higher end game play or cut some rules out. This is too much. Without some of these rules and lesser skilled clans getting by on disputing technicalities things might just be ok. Currently the rules are dictating game play, but it should be the game play that dictates the rules. I could present hundreds of tfc scenarios to explain what teams should do in different situations, but that would be useless. The problem here is that offense players no longer have to try, improvise, or adapt to defenses because the rules have given them too much help. So, if any of this makes sense to you, which I think at least half should, you'll take something away from this post. The most important thing being, get rid of some of these rules, because the league itself is not getting any bigger and certainly is not becomming more fun.
the league though you may not think it has actually grown a bit recently in every division except platinum. there are new clans joining and the sl usually has a few matches going all the time so yea, clans disband/go inactive but there are others to take their place. now one last thing about your rules argument and "disputing technicalities": lesser skilled clans, as you call them, dispute because they feel other clans toss out the rules to help them win. maybe it's true and maybe not but if clans present themselves with the opportunity to be disputed for breaking the rules then they deserve to get hit so they dont do it again. the rules are there and if you dont want to follow them then maybe the league's not for you and you should leave.

the main thing i think could be improved for the league is the dispute process. i dont quite know how it works but i noticed that there are now only 2 admins and (especially on 55) there have been a lot of disputes backing up. maybe they need more staff or active staff or maybe this is just an unusually high number of disputes in a concentrated time or both but i think that could be taken care of.

Loser

September 7th, 2006, 04:11 PM

Well in regards to Slash's post it seems that the rules Bookrat and Loser have placed in STA meet the needs of players that don't want to try.

Bookrat and Bucky are the 5v5 co-head admins; i'm the 5v5 bronze admin. while Bookrat and Bucky both 'out-rank' me in the 5v5 admin structure, all 5v5 admins have a say in any change to the rules. it is therefore incorrect to say that "Bookrat and Loser" have created these rules; yes, we've had our say, but so has every other admin.

and so has the 5v5 community. we've stated many times that we didn't sit down over a chilled bottle of tequila (hornitos ftw) and make up rules we thought the community should play under: the rules have evolved as we understand our customer base have wished them to evolve. yes, any gaming league is a service organization; yes, any gaming league lives and dies by how their customer base is satisfied by the league's gaming environment.

thing is, the STA 5v5 admin staff thinks the majority of 5v5 players are reasonably satisified with 5v5 gameplay. can the rules be improved? i have no doubt of it, but until we get a reasonable sentiment about which rules to change and why, from the majority of 5v5 players, we'd be fools to change things.

and let me quote bookrat:

Clans can always agree to throw any rule (except 'no hacking') out the window. You want 5 fatties? You want to ignore the OvO and Max D rules and allow turtling? You want to allow any amount of mm1 smack-talk? By all means, go right ahead! Bring it up with your captain, who can bring it up with their captain. If you both agree to it, then I guaran-damn-tee to you that I will not honour any disputes based on the rules that you agreed to waive. If I start to see a lot of people agreeing to waive rule X, then I also guaran-damn-tee to you that I will take a good hard look at rule X and see if it is outdated, and even poll the clans to see what the consensus is.

both the 9v9 and 5v5 leagues have always allowed teams to waive rules that both teams wish to avoid. you want to play by TFL rules? get your team and the other team to agree to it, and go forth and enjoy. if we start to see gameplay rules habitually waived, that tells us something, no?

finally, almost all of the strikes levied against platinum clans were assessed as a result of match forfeits.

Bookrat

September 7th, 2006, 04:29 PM

"The customer is always right" is a motto most service industries understand well.
The customer is not always right... but he is always the customer.

If one (very loud) customer comes in and says that he wants you to completely change the service model because he is not happy... does that make him right? Or does that just make him loud?

If, in response to these demands, you fail to change your service model, then you may well lose that customer... but if you give in to his demands, then you face the very real risk of alienating your other forty customers who are not unhappy with the current service model.

So who is 'right' in that situation? The one you just satisfied? Or the 40 you just pissed off?

The customer always represents what the customer wants, but what the customer wants may not always be what is sustainable or good for the business. It's very possible that the one (loud) customer actually represents a lot of customers who just aren't speaking up. It's also possible that he's a whiny, self-absorbed crank who wants everything his own way. That's why you need to look at other things... like what other people are saying, and (more importantly) whether your customer base is growing or shrinking relative to the market.

Of course STA TFC 5v5 has fewer clans now than it did a two years ago, or even one year ago, but so do most (all?) TFC leagues. It's not that surprising, even; it's a seven year-old game that a lot of people just don't play seriously any more. Bringing that point up doesn't really make much of an argument. How is STA TFC 5v5 doing compared to TFL 5v5? (okay, low blow...) or STA 9v9? Or TFL 9v9?

(Hats off to UGC who seem to have shrunk less than a lot of leagues, and even grown their 5v5 division with the death of TFL on Wednesdays. Odd thing about that: the UGC ruleset is significantly more restrictive than STA 5v's, but it doesn't seem to have hurt their popularity...)

I hope you realize that any power your admins wield flows directly from the consent of the governed.
Of course I do! This is exactly what I've been talking about -- the ability to 'vote with your feet'. Any league that doesn't satisfy the majority of its players won't last. I have no illusions otherwise. To quote the late, great Yogi Berra (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quoberra.shtml), "If people don't want to come out to the ballpark, how are you going to stop them?"

If the customer (clan) isn't happy, the merchant (league) can either change to suit it, or stay as they are and risk the customer's departure. Part of the problem is -- again -- that 5v5 clans have only two choices right now: STA or UGC. There is no league more 'lax' than STA since TFL 5v went under. That's unfortunate, because I honestly believe that some people were/would be happier there, and I wish that they still had a place with those rules (or lack thereof). Demanding that STA 5v turn into that place, however, constitutes a pretty large change that goes against what the established, longstanding, generally satisfied clan base, signed up for. Any change that significant would require some broad-base support before it could be implemented... but if enough clans felt that way, then it probably would.

In the mean time... I have made a commitment to come here and discuss things, even unpopular things. I have made the dispute process more transparent by providing a dispute resolution forum. I have said that I am open to rule changes if I hear from a significant number of clans (clans, not loud individuals or many people from the same clan) that it is what they want. To this end, I ask -- nay, beg -- people to get discussions going on the STA 5v5 forum; those are the people you need to convince, and who need to lend their voices, if you want things to change.

Wonka

September 7th, 2006, 04:50 PM

I'd like to redirect you to this thread:

http://forums.thecatacombs.net/showthread.php?t=75473

wraithforger

September 7th, 2006, 04:51 PM

From reading all of this, I think there seems to be an important point being ignored/overlooked by the 5v5 staff: vagueness & interpretation.

An example: Yard D, allowed. Defending the flag wherever it is, allowed. Killing enemy offense (a defender) before they exit their base, not allowed. O killing O with flag, allowed (assuming path is not altered).

Consider a situation where the flag is at the front door or in the base (of the offense). The defenders choose to continue their defense of the flag. Killing the offense trying to get it pretty much results in their deaths before they exit their base. Result? Dilema. Contradiction in rules. Helluva dispute to manage with only admin interpretation of said contradictory rules.

As for the specific situation...yard D is just that. If it's allowed, you're only opening up fart-loads of potential disputes with this other rule. It makes sense (to me) if this were pertaining to camping a spawn door. But the base? with 4 exits?

I've played from plat to bronze...and I have to agree that it appears that several of these rules cater to lower-caliber clans/players (I remember when 9v9 disallowed bhopping in bronze and below lol). The argument that a "higher-level" clan made the dispute is valid...however, how many times have we seen clans dispute just to get the victory?

EDIT:
I'd like to redirect you to this thread:

http://forums.thecatacombs.net/showthread.php?t=75473
lol ya i remember that...and my responses being deleted :rolleyes:

Fornaught

September 7th, 2006, 04:55 PM

Bookrat, my meaning is that you should be far less intent on winning aurguments like this (debate style), and far more intent on keeping a happy customer base. The first step is to acknowledge the need for constant improvement, a good admin will never claim that everything is running perfectly.

I have made the dispute process more transparent by providing a dispute resolution forum.

A noteworthy start, but it is only halfbaked. In fact it is hardly transparent, because your posts in that thread are completely MISSING the the list of events you count as rule breaks. That is the essence of what some players complain about. I believe that many in the TFC community would be surprised at how little it takes to be labeled a "rule breaker" in 5vs5, surprised at some of the minimal actions that constitute a real break under your interpretation (how some rules are implemented). And surprised at how little it can take to get a clan strike, a personal strike, a player suspension, a clan suspension, and a match overtuned.

In fact I have a challenge for you and Loser. Count up all the admin actions taken in 5vs5 in the last 6 months or a year - all the matches overturned, all the clans strikes given, all the players suspended, all the clans suspended. I think the community would be astounded by the real numbers. I know I am.

catman

September 7th, 2006, 06:44 PM

I am probably missing something, but for the life of me I cannot find the exact rule saying that you cannot shoot the enemy offense while they are in their base. It says you can't play D in their base, not that you cannot shoot them while their physical location is in their base and your physical location is not in their base.

I have said that I am open to rule changes if I hear from a significant number of clans (clans, not loud individuals or many people from the same clan) that it is what they want. To this end, I ask -- nay, beg -- people to get discussions going on the STA 5v5 forum; those are the people you need to convince, and who need to lend their voices, if you want things to change.

Well I guess everything is going to stay the same because we will never find a significant portion of the clans discussing anything. Hell, 9v9 couldn't get anyone to say anything in the captain's forum two years ago when I was a captain. People always had to post in the Cats for anyone to look. I remember you had to put up a huge fuss to get anything to go to a captain poll/vote (which usually meant a Cats post).

Bookrat is apparently just stuck with us though.

Slash

September 7th, 2006, 07:04 PM

The crux of that dispute was this: 5v5 has rules against attacking O before they get out of their base/away from their own front door. Now, as to whether this is a good rule or a bad rule, a necessary rule or a pussy-ass rule... these are not the issue. The point is that the rule is there, visible, in place on the website and it is clearly stated that it is not allowed.

FALSE. Please point to the Rule that says you cannot attack O before they get out of their base/front door. The only rules are rules which say you may not _PLAY DEFENSE_ in these locations. The rules are clear. You may not _PLAY DEFENSE_ at the front door or in the enemy base. To anyone who has played any sport or game knows what it means to be "playing" somewhere. Does a goaltender "play" halfway across the playing field/rink/whatever because he can hit the game object that far with his stick/foot/whatever? No. He _plays_ where he stands.

Your attempt to redefine common terminology and words is result of you trying to convince yourself that you are right. You are wrong Bookrat. So very wrong. Your twisted logic is similar to that of a religion fundementalist convincing themselves they are right no matter the cost.

Now, I have no doubt that Slash did not feel that he was doing anything wrong -- that, in his mind, because he was standing in the yard, it was all fine, that he was playing Yard D. In this, however, Slash's opinion differed from both his opponents and the admins.

I think the opinion of the other team is highly irrelevent, they just got shutout in devestating fashion and thought what I did was "gay". If I wouldn't have played yard D at all, they would have disputed over something else.

As a point of fact, there were many, many times when he engaged enemy O in the yard... but these were all thrown out when considering this dispute. Only the attacking of enemy O before they left their base (or in the immediate vicinity of their own front door) with both direct attacks (shotgun) and spammed grenades that was considered during the judgment. Since it was done to an amount considered 'excessive' by the admins, the dispute was ruled in favour of Slash's opponents.

What you fail to realize is that your own rules make no distinction between "playing defense" at a location and "engaging an enemy" at a location and "attacking an enemy" at a location. The only rules said "PLAYING DEFENSE" in the yard. Not engaging the enemy. WHERE I engaged the enemy and WHERE I attacked them is completely irrelevent in regards to the rules. The only thing that matters is WHERE I am playing defense.

This has been explained to Slash (twice now) yet he continues to reject it. There's not much more I can do at this point; in the face of continued accusations that both the people who wrote the rules and the opponents who read them and disputed him are wrong -- essentially, that nobody 'gets it' except him, and everyone else is an idiot -- there really isn't much else to say.

Noone gets it except for me? I hardly think STA 5v5 admins under yourself and an extremely angry disputing clan are a good sample. The only people who "get" your twisted reasoning and redefinition of english sport/game lexicon are the people who think playing defense in the yard and spamming and/or shooting enemies at the front door is "lame". I really don't care if it's "lame" or not, that's besides the point. The point is playing defense in the yard is legal under STA Rules. There is no rule which even mentions where or how you may engage or attack the enemy in these circumstances. If there were a rule against attacking and engaging enemies at certain locations, I would have gladly accepted the punishment.

An example: Yard D, allowed. Defending the flag wherever it is, allowed. Killing enemy offense (a defender) before they exit their base, not allowed. O killing O with flag, allowed (assuming path is not altered).

I agree with the problems that come up when you say "You can play yard D, but can't do this or this while doing so", but that isn't even the rules- The rules say playing D in the yard is legal, playing D at the front door or in the enemy base is illegal. Period. What you are doing while you are playing D in the yard is not relevent, assuming you aren't breaking one of the other rules, like max D or multiple defenders in the yard when the flag isn't there or hacking.

Slash, your quiz is funny

Funny? No, it's quite straightforward and clear. If you don't know where said people are "playing defense", I don't know what to tell you. I imagine it must be absolute hell in your clan when you are discussing defensive strategy. I'm sure when someone says "Hey, play D soldier in the RR" in 2fort, you play upper spiral and shoot rockets into the RR, right?

The interpretation of WHERE the defense is being played is fuzzy. Where is that nade blowing up? Where is that AC fire hitting? Just because an object is one place, doesn't mean it isn't acting in another.

Where something is _acting_? The rules only say "playing defense", not "where objects are interacting".

Where is that HWG playing Defense? You seriously don't know for sure based on that picture? On mulch_trench? Are you kidding me? Do you hear yourself? Give me a break, bud. You'd have to be goddamn out of your mind if you will have me believe you'd tell a teammate anything BUT "play HWG in the yard" if you wanted him to play there. Because thats how we talk when discussing defensive position. That's how EVERYONE talks.

According to Bookrat's claim that "playing defense" is "where objects are acting", which you subscribe to, if I told you "Hey, MoonGuardian, play in the yard as HWG", you are telling me you wouldn't know where to play, right? I bet 99.9% of TFC players who knew what the yard was would immediately stand somewhere in the yard if given that direction. Because that's how you interpret that phrase. That how everyone does.

You would NOT stand on your own battlements and shoot into the yard. You would NOT stand on the enemy battlements and shoot into the yard. You would NOT stand inside your own base and shoot into the yard. You would NOT stand in the enemy base and shoot into the yard. However, your interpretation says otherwise. According to you, not only would I have to say "play defense in the yard", I would also have to tell you "remember to stand in the yard while doing so". Absurd.

Your further comments on the legitamacy of yard D make it clear to me you subscribed to Bookrat's "logic" simply because you thought the act was lame. Please separate the actuality of the rules and your personal opinion on yard D.

If you find yourself saying things like "Just because an object is one place, doesn't mean it isn't acting in another. " in regards to a HWG playing defense in the yard, you must be down some type of insane path of thought that reasonable logic can no longer penetrate.

The fact of the matter is this. STA 5v5 says this HWG is playing defense in the enemy base because he is _attacking_ an enemy scout who is still in his own base (yes, there is a scout there in his base still):

http://www.slashbunny.com/sta-5v5/02.jpg

You'd have to be out of your goddamned mind if you think that HWG is "playing defense" in the enemy base. Period.

wraithforger

September 7th, 2006, 07:37 PM

Due to the abiguity, I do not feel a punishment was warranted here (imo). In the past, we have taken such situations to only improve upon the wording of rules. Instead of punishment, in this case, it would have made more sense to find how it could be less ambiguous/confusing. Eg, saying "No Yard D Allowed" would be much easier than trying to micromanage all of these possibile scenarios.

Like I said before, when you allow actions such as yard defense and defending the flag wherever it is...you are most definately going to be opening the floodgates for possible infractions. These other (seemingly odd) rules cannot coexist. It simply makes no sense.

Instead of making an example out of folks in order to justify your reasoning (ie, opinion) for these obviously vague rules, just step up and say "ya...this isn't very clear in the rules, eh? i guess we should be more specific." Look how the rules for teleporters in spawns progressed.

ODAY

September 7th, 2006, 07:55 PM

i dident read all this new bs

but ... 5v5 is run in micky mouse fashion ... no surprise

Solo

September 7th, 2006, 09:04 PM

I would like to see this post in the cesspool so I can tee off on stupidity.

dramling

September 7th, 2006, 09:13 PM

Edy

September 7th, 2006, 09:38 PM

You guys are a bunch of ungrateful whiny fucks.

If you don't want to play in a league which you think has "shitty rules", then don't play for the fucking league. They work hard to make rules to make the game fun. If you are going to complain about how when you broke the rules that arent that hard to follow, just leave the league cause you obviously can't handle it.

Leeg

September 7th, 2006, 09:45 PM

slash, all the times someone refers to yard d in the rules, especially UGC but STA as well, its considered as shooting into the yard. that right there^^ completely kills your whole long winded post. the only argument you made was "where someone stands and not where someone shoots is where they play". while i agree that if you play "flag hw" for instance, you stand on the flag but shoot the whole fr. when rules say no yard d or excessive yard d or w/e they mean damaging the enemy in the yard, not standing there and shooting wherever. and yes, the hw is not playing d in the enemy base because the door closes :rolleyes:

Actually, according to bookrat, yard D is perfectly legal. I can see where the confusion might get to you on that though, the rules are made, explained, and enforced in a bad way. What I've learned here is that you cannot be "emping/grenading the shit out of the doorway from 20 feet away." Thanks for the clarification on that.

nord

September 7th, 2006, 09:48 PM

just posting because i saw leeg post and he is in fact, gay.

Leeg

September 7th, 2006, 09:53 PM

Well uhhh, so are you :|

Slash

September 7th, 2006, 09:57 PM

slash, all the times someone refers to yard d in the rules, especially UGC but STA as well, its considered as shooting into the yard. that right there^^ completely kills your whole long winded post. the only argument you made was "where someone stands and not where someone shoots is where they play". while i agree that if you play "flag hw" for instance, you stand on the flag but shoot the whole fr. when rules say no yard d or excessive yard d or w/e they mean damaging the enemy in the yard, not standing there and shooting wherever. and yes, the hw is not playing d in the enemy base because the door closes :rolleyes:

solo probably the worst idea for this type of discussion right now. the cesspool would completely kill the effectiveness (or potential for) of this thread.

Apparently you don't understand what's going on.

If you don't want to play in a league which you think has "shitty rules", then don't play for the fucking league. They work hard to make rules to make the game fun. If you are going to complain about how when you broke the rules that arent that hard to follow, just leave the league cause you obviously can't handle it.

And you to an even lesser extent.

I would like to see this post in the cesspool so I can tee off on stupidity.

Might as well, STA 5v5 won't change.

<Bookrat> I AM THE LAW!

Corsair

September 7th, 2006, 10:07 PM

FALSE. Please point to the Rule that says you cannot attack O before they get out of their base/front door. The only rules are rules which say you may not _PLAY DEFENSE_ in these locations. The rules are clear. You may not _PLAY DEFENSE_ at the front door or in the enemy base. To anyone who has played any sport or game knows what it means to be "playing" somewhere. Does a goaltender "play" halfway across the playing field/rink/whatever because he can hit the game object that far with his stick/foot/whatever? No. He _plays_ where he stands.

I'm with Slashy on this one. The rules don't say you have to give a free pass out of the base. The rules don't say you can't pipe trap the enemy front door. The rules say you can't play in the door/base.

If you want the rules to prevent shooting people until they are out of the base... MAYBE THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY SAY THAT.

Conclusion: Bookrat is wrong.

dramling

September 7th, 2006, 10:19 PM

Actually, according to bookrat, yard D is perfectly legal. I can see where the confusion might get to you on that though, the rules are made, explained, and enforced in a bad way. What I've learned here is that you cannot be "emping/grenading the shit out of the doorway from 20 feet away." Thanks for the clarification on that.
i know it says yard d is legal, i was just using that as an example for clarification. like "no yard d means no shooting in the yard from anywhere" so, presumably no enemy base d means no matter where you are you cant shoot into the enemy base. this ALSO GOES FOR BEING ABLE TO LEAVE YOUR OWN BASE WITHOUT BEING SHOT. getting shot in your base means one of 2 things: 1 - defense is playing in enemy base, or 2 - offense is shooting you-->ovo/max d. no matter how you spin it, if you get shot on your way out your own base (not getting caught in anti d spam but actually targeted) then something's amiss.

EDIT: for you rule criticizers
Playing defense (defined as a deliberate attempt to inflict damage on the enemy offense) anywhere inside an enemy base, or immediately outside a base's exit(s), unless your flag has moved to (or very near) the location you are defending.
now if an o player shoots you in your base when you're o then they're either over max d and/or playing d in your base. ILLEGAL

mizan

September 7th, 2006, 10:26 PM

Having just taken a second to look at the official dispute email we got, I'd like to point out that Bookrat is completely wrong in his assertion that fL "got it" in reguards playing d inside the base. See:

Disputing clan: Clan .fL
Disputed clan: .the .produkkt
Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2006,
Division: Gold

Dispute Summary:
====================
.fL is disputing that .the .produkkt violated Yard D rule in their match dated 4-4-06.

As you can see, we were disputed for yard D, not defense inside the base. Bookrat has admitted it is perfectly legal to have one yard D. This other snippet is the conclusion of the dispute email which contains numerous factual flaws/inconsistencies.

"- Stationing one player in the yard is explicitly allowed by the STA TFC 5v5 rules. Playing defense inside or immediately outside the enemy base, however, is not. Occasional incidents may be allowed, but in Round 2 Krieg demonstrated a consistent pattern of engaging enemy offense (with weapons and grenades) on their own side of the map, and often before they had even left their base. Yes, it's a small mid-map area, but that's one of the things that a defender stationed there has to take into account." - Bookrat

* Yard D is legal.
* The rules never divide the yard into "thier side/our side".
* The rules do not mention different yard d rules for different sized maps.

Dramling, perhaps you could point me in the direction of any STA 5v5 rule that mentions yard D, other than allowing a single defender in the yard and allowing full yard D if the flag is moved there. Yes, the UGC rules do prohibit shooting into the yard, however they very explicitly lay it out as not only positional, but damagewise as well(key phrase "aimed at the yard").

"7.18. Defense from the battlements (aimed at the yard) is not allowed if the flag has not been moved outside those battlements or the flag is not visible from the yard. Obviously this rule cannot be applied uniformly due to the fact that maps are so varied in their layout. "

Compare that to
<[TFCC]Bookrat> "Playing defense anywhere inside an enemy base, or immediately outside a base's exit(s), unless your flag has moved to (or very near) the location you are defending."

I would love to listen to the D comms in your clans if you really go by the ludicrous system of "playing defense where damage is taken" philosophy. Do you shoot the button from the flag on openfire and say "In position at the button!"?

Edy, call it what you will but feedback is absolutely necessary from the community to the admins. I've certainly earned the right to speak my mind about perceived flaws in the league both with my service as an admin and with the participation of my clan. You might also want to note that I stuck up for a clan I had disputed, because of a frivilous punishment against them.

produkkt|mizan

dramling

September 7th, 2006, 10:56 PM

did i ever say yard d was illegal in sta? the main rule in sta which mentions yard d says no excessive use of multiple defenders shooting at/nading/etc the yard area. so....what?

MoonGuardian

September 7th, 2006, 11:02 PM

wow, go play a new game if you can't play with rules. <= in comparison to TFL/STA, moving STA to TFL type style.
If what I said contridicted any 5v5/STA admins. That's because That isn't my job. My words cannot be taken for truth.
biggest problem with this stuff is. There are a select 5? who bitch about something. And they claim to back up the community.
"80% of the time, the customer is lying to your face." Quoted from my business class in reguards to an argument. And you know its realistic. For some odd reason, STA5v5 is doing quite well for the TFC community being so small now, this outcry makes no difference. Dropping from the league? Enjoy - UGC5v5 is looking, 7v7, 9v9. Or move on to a new game.

Done looking at this thread.

catman

September 7th, 2006, 11:15 PM

Moon, the whole point of the argument is that we believe we were playing within the STA's rules and that Bookrat (or whoever the dispute admin was) disreguarded them because he thought what we did was lame and that it shouldn't be done. We felt that the ruling was incorrect in regards to the rules in place at the time. This is quite a long thread, so at times we may also add our opinions on the current ruleset, but that doesn't mean you should bash us because of our opinions.

I am trying to figure out if you are being ironic/sarcastic with your comment on the 80% of the time customers lie.

Our "outcry" is not meant to dissolve STA or make clans leave it. It is meant to show our dissatisfaction towards the way they handle disputes and interpret/add on the fly rules. If we do claim that it is backed up by the community it is only because Mizan asked other Gold clan leaders what they thought and they agreed with us.

Leeg

September 7th, 2006, 11:17 PM

Moonguardian, I'm glad you're done looking at this thread because I'm tired of looking at your stupid text from your stupid fingers typing away at your stupid keyboard. The problem is that the league of clans is content with whoever is in charge and sees no reason to examine and look at the decisions that are being/have been made. Just because someone is an admin or in a position of power does not mean every move they make is right. If we just assume that without some kind of checks and balances, then there will be more problems than not. Just because we're the only group speaking up about this particular problem does not mean that we are the only ones who see a problem. In fact, the person who started this thread, started it with a problem that had nothing to do with the produkkt or anything posted today. So this "if you dont like it then leave" mentality will not work. When there are problems occuring with the current administration, they deserve to be brought up and worked out, and clearly there were several errors made on decisions and rules in the information discussed here.

colin

September 8th, 2006, 04:50 AM

I'm with Slashy on this one. The rules don't say you have to give a free pass out of the base. The rules don't say you can't pipe trap the enemy front door. The rules say you can't play in the door/base.

If you want the rules to prevent shooting people until they are out of the base... MAYBE THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY SAY THAT.

Conclusion: Bookrat is wrong.

is firing into a base playing defense inside the base? no.

that's as literal of an interpretation as you can get. if it does not reflect the intention of the rule then the rule must be rewritten.

on a side note, it's a stupid rule. the distinction leagues create between bases and yards is bullshit.

ODAY

September 8th, 2006, 10:42 AM

edy its not the rules... sta 9v has almost the same rules ( correct me if im wrong) i think its just how there run ... and the wording.. like wraith(i think)
said its the poor wording on rules that makes it tough ... and i know these guys are putting out there own free time to do this bs... but i think the leauge is poorly run

udead

September 8th, 2006, 11:12 AM

Bump.

No Flag

Rules Broken

caedere

September 8th, 2006, 01:59 PM

The point is that the rule is there, visible, in place on the website and it is clearly stated that it is not allowed.

Though I am [FOoM] (but not in the produkkt), I tried to look at this from an unbiased standpoint.

When this match took place, the rule was this: "The following tactics are strongly discouraged in match play, and may result in a dispute being upheld if one is entered: ...Playing defense anywhere inside an enemy base, or immediately outside a base's exit(s), unless your flag has moved to (or very near) the location you are defending." First of all, that is hardly "clearly stated". Slash was attacking from his side of the yard and never crossed the bridge toward the enemy base. Yes, he was tossing grenades in their base entrances, but his physical location was not immediately outside the base's exits. So where was he playing defense? Simple logic says he's playing defense in the yard...if you're defending the button on openfire and shoot at someone coming in the main entrance, you're not playing defense at the main entrance, are you?

Even the rule of what interprets a defender is flawed: "(defense is) defined as a deliberate attempt to inflict damage on the enemy offense". So based on that rule, if I potshot an attacker as an attacker just once, I have just played defense and we have now exceeded the Max D rule and can be disputed. That also needs to be rewritten.

Overall I think the rule that the produkkt was in violation of was very vague, unclear, and could have been interpreted in many different ways. I also feel the STA 5v5 admins did not properly analyze the situation, nor act in an appropriate manner. If STA 5v5 does have such a radical rule that determines your defensive location based on where you can attack the enemy offense (and not where you're actually standing), then that needs to be clearly stated, since no other league in TFC past or present has had any rule like that.

I have been considering starting up my old STA 5v5 team recently since some of my old friends have started to play TFC again. But I am not going to play in a league where rules are poorly written and up for interpretation, thus I have chosen to look elsewhere.

mizan