Temutu and Christian2502 disqualification

[dicktator_]

We hate to have to do this but unfortunately there is no other choice. Temutu and christian2502 will be disqualified from the Treaty Brawl, and AJIV and ramex19 moved up into the semifinals, for the following reasons:

1. Smurfing: We have a lot of evidence that points to christian2502 being a smurf. (Side note: temutu is not a smurf, he is an Orinoco player. He uses many accounts, but temutu has always been his main. He practiced for the tourney by playing andes games on various accounts. However, christian2502 is definitely a smurf.)
-No recent games on the christian2502 account. How could he have such good performance in the tourney, holding charlemagen and beating ramex19, when, aside from tourney games and a few 2v2s, he has not played in 5 months?
-Past game performance does not match up with tourney performance. In the past, christian2502 was a PR22-PR23 player, never ranking up above pr23. If you ask anyone who played with him, they will agree that that is his real rank. In the tourney, however, he is playing at a high captain level at least.

2. Lag: We have definite proof that temutu and/or christian2502 lag quite hard. I've played games with charlemagen/_H2O and with AJIV/ramex19, and none of them lagged considerably. However, temutu/christian2502's games against both charlemagen/_H2O and AJIV/ramex19 lagged very hard. This can be seen on _H2O's stream (https://www.twitch.tv/ryanmankle/v/93924934). Lag is unfair because it slows down the game providing slower players an advantage, and units do not react the same in lag as in no lag, for example sometimes melee units simply don't work. The Treaty Team Brawl was intended to be played with little/no lag.

Temutu and christian2502 were not disqualified in the previous round due to the lack of motivation that charlemagen and _H2O had to continue the tournament. I will conclude this by taking this opportunity to reiterate that smurfing in tournaments is unacceptable. It is different from smurfing in normal games because there is cash involved. If you attempt to smurf in a tournament, you will get caught and DQ'd, no one will benefit, you will lose respect, and you will create extra work for admins as they take time to sort the situation out. This applies to both supremacy and treaty.

Edit: I didn't put much thought into this original post because I expected it to be an open and shut case, they smurfed and got DQ'd, but as temutuAoe3 pointed out it is not. See this post for a better explanation:

Alright, my head is a lot clearer now so I'm going to explain exactly what happened, what went wrong, and why there's so much drama and controversy over this particular disqualification.

What happened: We had sufficient reason to believe christian2502 (and possibly temutu as well) were smurfs. These reasons included no games on the christian2502 account in the past 5 months, a sudden drastic improvement in performance compared to previous games on the account, and use of proxy IPs/VPNs by both temutu and christian2502. As smurfing goes directly against one of our rules, the tourney admins unanimously decided to disqualify christian2502 and temutu.

Where we as tourney admins went wrong: While I still believe the punishment to be fitting of the crime, the execution of the punishment could have been much better:

-We did not give the users on temutu or christian2502 a chance to give their side of the story. We DQ'd temutu and christian2502 without warning and without attempting to reach out to them. AJIV and ramex19 had a say in the final decision, so, for fairness purposes, we should have given temutu and christian2502 that same opportunity. It's likely that the result punishment would have been the same, but by giving them a chance to have a say the decision would not be so biased and one sided. Also worth mentioning is that those within ESOC are for the most part aware that smurfing generally results in immediate disqualifications (this can be seen in the supremacy tournaments), but it might not be obvious to those outside of ESOC.

-We cited lag as a reason for the disqualification. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says lag should lead to a disqualification. Furthermore, we did not have the "definite proof" that I claimed we had that temutu and christian2502 were the sole cause of lag, as can be seen by the screenshot with ramex19's yellow ping.

-We didn't any rules regarding player lag. Player lag can ruin games and give some teams a disadvantage, but we should have had some kind of pre-set rule or procedure on how to determine who is lagging and how to handle it.

-We did not change the rules to reflect the change in streaming policy. I still think it was unfair to compare a discrepancy in rules regarding streaming policy to blatant smurfing, but the point that temutuAoe3 made still stands. The moment we decided to allow Gichtenlord and _H2O to stream their tourney games, we should have updated the rules to reflect the change in streaming policy.

-We waited too long to take action. It was obvious after the game against charlemagen and _H2O that their opponents were most likely smurfs. We should've looked into it and taken action immediately after that game and prior to the game against AJIV and ramex19, regardless of whether or not _H2O was interested in a rematch.

Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes here when running treaty tournaments in the future.

My offering: (This does not in any way represent the opinions of other admins). Here is what I am willing to do to make up for errors in judgement on behalf of myself and other admins. If the real users of temutu and christian2502 say who they are, and that they are willing to rematch, I will attempt to convince AJIV, veni, and the other admins to grant them a rematch. I can't guarantee that they will agree to it, but I'll do my best to convince them.

That said... smurfing in tournaments is still wrong. It has detrimental effects on the tourney as a whole, including but not limited to that it fucks up seeding (players are seeded based on ELO) and that it gives the smurfs an unfair advantage in that their opponents have no idea what they're up against. We made errors in judgement when handling this smurfing case but the biggest error of judgement was the decision to smurf in the first place. If the real users behind temutu and christian2502 had just played on their mains none of this would have happened.

[Hazza54321]

ryan and charlemagen vs veni and craig? 31 13 48 52

[sergyou]

so chrisitian coulnd't play in an acc u don't know off and improve? . The lag argument is absurd , if it is an argument then watch the rec of my game and u wll see my lancers and huamincas not atacking... in a tr game there is lag.

[WickedCossack]

ryan and charlemagen vs veni and craig? 31 13 48 52

No tournament is immune from the Hazzinator!

[lordraphael]

at least in this tourney there are action being taken vs smurfing

[dicktator_]

so chrisitian coulnd't play in an acc u don't know off and improve? . The lag argument is absurd , if it is an argument then watch the rec of my game and u wll see my lancers and huamincas not atacking... in a tr game there is lag.

It's the combination of things that lead to the disqualification. It's possible christian was playing on a different account for the past 5 months but then he should've handled it like OliverP did, he made it clear that he was playing/practicing on germancompany so no one got an unfair disadvantage by not knowing who they were against.

[Hazza54321]

at least in this tourney there are action being taken vs smurfing

what? i got dq'd

[Mitoe]

at least in this tourney there are action being taken vs smurfing

what? i got dq'd

He's referring to AdrianCarrot.

[temutuAoe3]

@dicktator_

notification

, this is beyond unfair and so hypocritical. You get one side of the story (I’m sure @AJIV

notification

whined about it in your private group to the mods where you all talk privately, and, after the game and convinced them to kick us out) and the you never bothered to ask for our side of the story. The decision was made with just his one side of the story. And you even locked our thread thereby suppressing our voice and our opinion before you rendered a judgement..
But like all probabilistic events there was a chance that despite us winning fair and square we would be on the receiving end of a raw deal. Why? Well this is the risk we underwrite when we are outsiders competing against an entrenched clique. As time progressed and matches were won, there was a concerted attempt to find a reason - any reason - to thwart our progress and kick us out. The subtle signs were present much earlier in the tournament, but now they are manifest to all.
It has been quite obvious throughout the tourney that the insiders are favoring the insiders thereby creating a self-reinforcing and predictable pattern of double standard. We all know who the best players, who the insiders want to see in semi finals and finals and who them want to be crowned the ultimate winner.

But since you’ve set a stage for an argument based on impartial logic and reason let’s see how you react to the following blatant violation of rules:

Rules that insiders/admins/mods/their friends been violated:

4.2 - If the players and caster(s) determine that a selected match cannot be streamed due to lag, in order to provide an optimal environment for competitive play, the match may be streamed from the replays instead.
4.3 - Only casters that have been authorized by the tournament staff will be permitted to stream matches.
4.5 - All streamed matches must have a time delay of 2 minutes.

H2O violated rule 4.5 by streaming live, rule 4.3 by by streaming despite not being the caster and rule 4.2 streaming while complaining of lag.

Gichtenlord did the same here - https://www.twitch.tv/pwnika2/v/93968186

Will we ever see retribution of any form on those basis for h2o or Gichtenlord? Let alone a disqualification.

Reason #2 is absurd for the following reasons:
AJIV, christian and temutu had green ping in lobby. Only @Veni_Vidi_Vici_W

notification

/ramex had yellow ping. In this case, we do have a “proof.” See https://camo.eso-community.net/e8c56a248b9b4a1c743f30f15bdce55cc614d87d/687474703a2f2f6936372e74696e797069632e636f6d2f326a637a6b62372e6a7067. Is that a "definite proof" that ramex is the lagger? Maybe, maybe not. But you claim you have “definite proof” that we lag simply based on your past experience but at the same time in your post imply that you don’t know who Christian2502 is.

Our team had the decency to play the game without whining about lag seeing as how it affects all players, not just the ones complaining. The game is won based on many factors -boom, army composition, ability to protect flanks, map awareness, morale, etc.

Consider this - did lag force ramex to spam dragoons as france and drain hard as he did? His favorite unit was dragoon against a musk based brit army. Would lag have saved him from draining due to dragoon spam? No one believes that. He had the wrong unit composition all along and it’s obvious that the excuse of “lag” is just a red herring. I challenge anyone to watch the recording and tell me why he should’ve won with the crappiest army composition ever see with france.
--------

During our first game, when we banned a civ we weren't able to play that civ ourselves due to rules as Charle and h2o respectfully pointed out. For the second game when we banned a civ, the opponent team wanted to play that civ anyway until we made them aware of the rules. And after we did that, both ramex and ajiv expressed condescension and scorn towards us for no reason, violating rule:
1.1 - Every player must respect the casters, organizers, and their opponents. Misbehavior will result in a warning and can lead to disqualification. Racism and/or insults will not be tolerated.

We never insulted back. We had the grace and dignity to keep our mouths shut.

"

Temutu and christian2502 were not disqualified in the previous round due to the lack of motivation that charlemagen and _H2O had to continue the tournament

."

It’s very kind of you to take into consideration the motivation of players despite it not being anywhere in the rules as far as we can see. I supposed it must be one of the rules created on demand. I'm guessing ajiv and ramex were not disqualified despite losing fair and square because "they had motivation to continue the tournament" ? And our motivation never received your consideration because we are “laggers” and “smurfs”?

1.3 - A team's combined Treaty Team ELO can not exceed ~4600.

The total ELO of AJIV and Veni_vidi_vici_w (ramex19’s main) is over 4900. But I guess since AJIV is a buddy of the andes clique, his team gets a pass? But God forbid a smurf plays on Christian and he must be kicked out regardless of his elo. So Veni with 2600 can use ramex account with less than 2000 elo but if Christian did that, he’s kicked out?

This also violates rule:

5.1 - The registered account name must be the main account of its owner for proper seeding.

This is what happens when the participants are the administrators. It’s too easy to bend rules, twist rules, selectively apply rules based on a pre-set agenda and make new rules on the fly.

“It's possible christian was playing on a different account for the past 5 months but then he should've handled it like OliverP did, he made it clear that he was playing/practicing on germancompany so no one got an unfair disadvantage by not knowing who they were against.”

There is no such rule stating that anywhere. And your logic is utterly absurd. What advantage is to be gained by knowing who is whom? What advantage did I gain if I knew who Veni was, what his strengths or weaknesses were, what his favorite civs were? What advantage would I gain if I knew ramex was Dicktator? I would have won in that case? There are nilla players who are participating and they are unknown to tad players and hence don’t know “who they were against.” But I guess they again get an exception because they never made it this far?
You are implying that the opponents were tricked into thinking that we are noobs and hence went “easy” on us which is totally not the case. None of the players implied or expressed any indication that they were picking a weaker civ, or refusing to push too hard, or refusing to run or use any other tactics to beat us. They all tried their best, picked their best civ, gave it their all and still lost. Would the name of the account have changed ANY of it? Would it have made them micro faster, boom better, multitask better make army composition better?

“Lag is unfair because it slows down the game providing slower players an advantage”

And obviously you are assuming that we got all the advantage of the lag right? Since lag only slowed down the best players - AJIV and ramex? Lag never affected us? Because we are the “slow players?” Lag never gave any advantage to AJIV and ramex?

“Units do not react the same in lag as in no lag, for example sometimes melee units simply don't work”

Your observation is correct but your logic is backwards. You will note the previous game was won by PUSHING into their eco, not by camping. AJIV was about to lose his eco/factories. Pushing requires more effort, more resources, more skill and a lot more meele units (hand cav) compared to camping (which AJIV and ramex did). This is because the player who is on the defense can defend and make units while he sees the pusher’s army while it’s walking. And due to lag he gets a lot more time to think about the army composition compared to a pusher. If anything, lag favored them, not us.

And here’s the final point which I want to make:
If AJIV and Ramex had won the past game fair and square despite it lagging, you would not have raised the issue of lag, would you? In fact, if we had appealed the loss and pointed out that ramex was lagging (with proof ) it would still be a loss for us, right?


We have given our all at this point. Between practicing for months and making good faith attempts to play fairly within all the rules created (despite those being violated by other participants) we are still willing to rematch ajiv and ramex if they feel wronged - with the same map, with the same civs.

But obviously we have no power at this point - we are neither sponsors nor “admins.” It was our hope to participate in this tournament under the assumption that all participants would be held to the same standard under the same letter of the rules but clearly some are favored more than the rest. Rules are too arbitrary, rulings are made privately with just 1 side of the story.

We hope you the community at large will voice their judgement too and be the arbiter of this dispute.

[dicktator_]

@dicktator_

notification

, this is beyond unfair and so hypocritical. You get one side of the story (I’m sure @AJIV

notification

whined about it in your private group to the mods where you all talk privately, and, after the game and convinced them to kick us out) and the you never bothered to ask for our side of the story. The decision was made with just his one side of the story. And you even locked our thread thereby suppressing our voice and our opinion before you rendered a judgement..I kept this thread open didn't I?
But like all probabilistic events there was a chance that despite us winning fair and square we would be on the receiving end of a raw deal. Why? Because you blatantly broke tourney rules :/Well this is the risk we underwrite when we are outsiders competing against an entrenched clique. As time progressed and matches were won, there was a concerted attempt to find a reason - any reason - to thwart our progress and kick us out. If you had played on your mains no such attempt would have been made to "thwart" your tourney progress. The subtle signs were present much earlier in the tournament, but now they are manifest to all.
It has been quite obvious throughout the tourney that the insiders are favoring the insiders thereby creating a self-reinforcing and predictable pattern of double standard. Sorry, you guys were the only ones concealing your identities in the tournament. I'm not saying that double standards are not a problem and that the treaty community is not a clique closed off to outsiders, these are problems that have to be dealt with, but you guys earned this dq.We all know who the best players, who the insiders want to see in semi finals and finals and who them want to be crowned the ultimate winner.

But since you’ve set a stage for an argument based on impartial logic and reason let’s see how you react to the following blatant violation of rules:

Rules that insiders/admins/mods/their friends been violated:

4.2 - If the players and caster(s) determine that a selected match cannot be streamed due to lag, in order to provide an optimal environment for competitive play, the match may be streamed from the replays instead.
4.3 - Only casters that have been authorized by the tournament staff will be permitted to stream matches.
4.5 - All streamed matches must have a time delay of 2 minutes.

H2O violated rule 4.5 by streaming live, rule 4.3 by by streaming despite not being the caster and rule 4.2 streaming while complaining of lag.
Gichtenlord and _H2O both got clearance from admins before streaming. OBS maps were not finished, an error on the part of the Treaty Brawl staff, yet there was high demand to see streamed tourney matches. All the streams had a delay of at least two minutes. Rules 4.3 and 4.5 were not violated. I see the argument for 4.2 regarding _H2O. However, it was obvious that H2O was not the one lagging, because his stream was not dropping any frames. You're comparing a minor infraction to blatant ignorance of a rule that quite frankly should be common sense.
Gichtenlord did the same here - https://www.twitch.tv/pwnika2/v/93968186

Will we ever see retribution of any form on those basis for h2o or Gichtenlord? Let alone a disqualification.

Reason #2 is absurd for the following reasons:
AJIV, christian and temutu had green ping in lobby. Only @Veni_Vidi_Vici_W

notification

/ramex had yellow ping. In this case, we do have a “proof.” See https://camo.eso-community.net/e8c56a248b9b4a1c743f30f15bdce55cc614d87d/687474703a2f2f6936372e74696e797069632e636f6d2f326a637a6b62372e6a7067. Is that a "definite proof" that ramex is the lagger? Maybe, maybe not. But you claim you have “definite proof” that we lag simply based on your past experience but at the same time in your post imply that you don’t know who Christian2502 is. I used process of elimination. _H2O, charlemagen, AJIV, and ramex19 have never lagged that hard. Yet both your games against them lagged. And I think we both know why.

Our team had the decency to play the game without whining about lag seeing as how it affects all players, not just the ones complaining. The game is won based on many factors -boom, army composition, ability to protect flanks, map awareness, morale, etc.

Consider this - did lag force ramex to spam dragoons as france and drain hard as he did? His favorite unit was dragoon against a musk based brit army. Would lag have saved him from draining due to dragoon spam? No one believes that. He had the wrong unit composition all along and it’s obvious that the excuse of “lag” is just a red herring. I challenge anyone to watch the recording and tell me why he should’ve won with the crappiest army composition ever see with france. Lag does effect some players worse than others based on civ and experience dealing with lag. I'm sure that ramex19 lost because of his own mistakes and lag alone is obviously not a reason for a disqualification. If those two games had been zero lag, you probably would have been DQ'd for smurfing alone. However lag is a pain to deal with, and because it was obviously you guys, it seemed like it was worth mentioning.
--------

During our first game, when we banned a civ we weren't able to play that civ ourselves due to rules as Charle and h2o respectfully pointed out. For the second game when we banned a civ, the opponent team wanted to play that civ anyway until we made them aware of the rules. And after we did that, both ramex and ajiv expressed condescension and scorn towards us for no reason, violating rule: That was our fault. We did not make it clear how civ banning works, that was an error in wording on our part. For the record, charlemagen and _H2O are correct, if a civ is banned neither team can play it.
1.1 - Every player must respect the casters, organizers, and their opponents. Misbehavior will result in a warning and can lead to disqualification. Racism and/or insults will not be tolerated.
That rule is for extreme circumstances. "Scorn" and "condescension" doesn't really warrant more than a warning.
We never insulted back. We had the grace and dignity to keep our mouths shut. Good for you guys.

"

Temutu and christian2502 were not disqualified in the previous round due to the lack of motivation that charlemagen and _H2O had to continue the tournament

."

It’s very kind of you to take into consideration the motivation of players despite it not being anywhere in the rules as far as we can see. I supposed it must be one of the rules created on demand. I'm guessing ajiv and ramex were not disqualified despite losing fair and square because "they had motivation to continue the tournament" ? And our motivation never received your consideration because we are “laggers” and “smurfs”?
If we had DQ'd you guys for smurfing that game, it would have been charlemagen and _H2O VS AJIV and ramex19. However, _H2O said on stream that he never wants to play treaty again, and he uninstalled the patch. It seemed pointless to take any action when _H2O was not in the slightest interested in a rematch, so we decided to wait and see. Looking back, this was an error on our part. We should have taken action immediately instead of waiting and seeing, because it was obvious that it was a smurf on christian even then.

1.3 - A team's combined Treaty Team ELO can not exceed ~4600.

The total ELO of AJIV and Veni_vidi_vici_w (ramex19’s main) is over 4900. But I guess since AJIV is a buddy of the andes clique, his team gets a pass? But God forbid a smurf plays on Christian and he must be kicked out regardless of his elo. So Veni with 2600 can use ramex account with less than 2000 elo but if Christian did that, he’s kicked out? Here's the difference. Veni hasn't used his veni_vidi_vici_w account in YEARS. As soon as veni came back from a prolonged break, he made ramex19 his main. Additionally, Veni talked with admins about using ramex19 to sign up for the tournament. You can't compare their situation with yours.

This also violates rule:

5.1 - The registered account name must be the main account of its owner for proper seeding.

This is what happens when the participants are the administrators. It’s too easy to bend rules, twist rules, selectively apply rules based on a pre-set agenda and make new rules on the fly.
For the record neither AJIV nor veni are admins in this tournament. If the community were bigger I'd agree that participants should not be administrators.

“It's possible christian was playing on a different account for the past 5 months but then he should've handled it like OliverP did, he made it clear that he was playing/practicing on germancompany so no one got an unfair disadvantage by not knowing who they were against.”

There is no such rule stating that anywhere. And your logic is utterly absurd. What advantage is to be gained by knowing who is whom? What advantage did I gain if I knew who Veni was, what his strengths or weaknesses were, what his favorite civs were? What advantage would I gain if I knew ramex was Dicktator? I would have won in that case? There are nilla players who are participating and they are unknown to tad players and hence don’t know “who they were against.” But I guess they again get an exception because they never made it this far?
You are implying that the opponents were tricked into thinking that we are noobs and hence went “easy” on us which is totally not the case. None of the players implied or expressed any indication that they were picking a weaker civ, or refusing to push too hard, or refusing to run or use any other tactics to beat us. They all tried their best, picked their best civ, gave it their all and still lost. Would the name of the account have changed ANY of it? Would it have made them micro faster, boom better, multitask better make army composition better? And here it is. Apparently you think smurfing in tournaments is acceptable. It fucks up seeding and makes it so that players don't know who they are against. And you can't compare tournament smurfing with nilla players coming over to TAD, they're different game modes. Debur and Gren both have a decent number of TAD games anyway, and if they didn't, they would've been completely fucked, coming over from a game mode with 5 less cards and where players just fight in one spot the whole game. And the account names probably didn't give you an advantage in your game against AJIV and ramex19, but it definitely did against charlemagen and _H2O. Do you think charlemagen would have let _H2O play brits in nats if they had known they were VS good players?

“Lag is unfair because it slows down the game providing slower players an advantage”

And obviously you are assuming that we got all the advantage of the lag right? Since lag only slowed down the best players - AJIV and ramex? Lag never affected us? Because we are the “slow players?” Lag never gave any advantage to AJIV and ramex?

“Units do not react the same in lag as in no lag, for example sometimes melee units simply don't work”

Your observation is correct but your logic is backwards. You will note the previous game was won by PUSHING into their eco, not by camping. AJIV was about to lose his eco/factories. Pushing requires more effort, more resources, more skill and a lot more meele units (hand cav) compared to camping (which AJIV and ramex did). This is because the player who is on the defense can defend and make units while he sees the pusher’s army while it’s walking. And due to lag he gets a lot more time to think about the army composition compared to a pusher. If anything, lag favored them, not us. Above point I made on lag applies here.

And here’s the final point which I want to make:
If AJIV and Ramex had won the past game fair and square despite it lagging, you would not have raised the issue of lag, would you? In fact, if we had appealed the loss and pointed out that ramex was lagging (with proof ) it would still be a loss for us, right?
As I said before I conceded to the point that lag alone isn't enough for a DQ. It just seemed like it was worth adding onto the post.

We have given our all at this point. Between practicing for months and making good faith attempts to play fairly within all the rules created play fairly using christian2502 to smurf, messing up seeding and and making everyone think your a noob? :/ (despite those being violated by other participants) we are still willing to rematch ajiv and ramex if they feel wronged - with the same map, with the same civs. If you say who's really using christian2502 (probably you sid) and if AJIV and ramex19 agree to it I'd be willing to push for a rematch.

But obviously we have no power at this point - we are neither sponsors nor “admins.” It was our hope to participate in this tournament under the assumption that all participants would be held to the same standard under the same letter of the rules but clearly some are favored more than the rest. Rules are too arbitrary, rulings are made privately with just 1 side of the story.

We hope you the community at large will voice their judgement too and be the arbiter of this dispute.

Nice of Sid to write this post for you temutu. Response OTW but I will say this right now: I only closed the record game thread. This thread will remain open and I will not delete this post, it was never my intention to censor any opinions. Because I have respect for sid's intelligence/opinions I want to come up with a good response, but this decision was unanimous among the admins.

Responses in bold.

[_H2O]

Citing the rules as law is tough.
Speaking as a player in this event and a supporter of the leaders in the treaty community I think some of the points you made are valid and some are not.

Whether I streamed my games or veni and ajiv were frustrated about the rules is small change and not all crimes warrant the same punishment. smurfing and lagging has nothing to do with those other things you pointed out. The outcome for your team would be the same regardless based on the reasons.

Ultimately the admins have to make the right call for the community in a group as small as this one.

For the part where you asked to disqualify me for streaming. Go ahead and do that.

That aside I am proven not to lag and to be perfectly honest it's a bit of a joke to pretend that it could have been part of the issue. I'm not much for the fairness arguement when really what should happen is what's best for the community.

No one ever said you got all the advantage either. Though if you are bad you most certainly did. If your the source you most certainly did. You got to play the game on your terms. With your delays and timings. If your the cause that's just not going to fly at least in our main sup events anymore. There is no defendable position on lagging.

Oh the inferring my motives your are quite naive to think these guys aren't in the loop on my intentions and tanners. Though poorly written if we wanted to try to ride this disqualification into playing we probably could. Ultimately it worked out nicer for us to not play and to keep the event moving. Good work by the admins on that decision. (Oh and Charlemagne is an admin).

I can't speak to the dosqualification, as I couldn't move my units and didn't even boom correctly in the game we played. Furthermore at times I was so bored I literally stopped playing. That one wouldn't have been made lightly and I highly doubt it was because they were upset their friends got knocked out. Tanner doesn't care, veni also signed up like I did for fun more or less.

[temutuAoe3]

"For the part where you asked to disqualify me for streaming. Go ahead and do that. "

Wow you're so brave, giving up something that you no longer own (your position in tourney). I bet that took a lot of courage?!

Sarcasm aside, @H2O_

notification

everyone damn well knows that that it wasn't my point to disqualify you for streaming. In fact I respect and support your decision to stream. Not allowing livestream of tourney game (even with a delay) was an as boneheaded decision as I've ever seen.

We all want more players playing this game, not less. My point was that rules are haphazardly created and arbitrarily enforced. Do I want people kicked for streaming? No, of course not. Why would I care? It doesn't hurt me for one. But don't you think it's unfair if I'm kicked for violating a rule created on the fly (lagging) and people like gichtenlord aren't? Isn't that a double standard or am I missing something? And we never get a second chance?

Dicktator did imply that the worse player got an advantage and the better player got a disadvantage. Based on the outcome of the games it can only mean that we were worse players and we won because of lag.

Whitewashing the rules to "make the right call for the community in a group as small as this one" seems like BS. I'm cool with mods either being fascist with the rules (instant kick for a slight mistake) or Laissez-faire (streaming allowed even tho it says it's not, teams are cool as long as top 4 TR players don't team up). But it's so clear there are no second chances for us, no way to fix it despite us being favored team. No explanation, no warning, no chance just kicked out. All the hard work and effort and following the rules gone to waste.

Citing the rules as law is tough.
Speaking as a player in this event and a supporter of the leaders in the treaty community I think some of the points you made are valid and some are not.

Ultimately the admins have to make the right call for the community in a group as small as this one.

For the part where you asked to disqualify me for streaming. Go ahead and do that.

That aside I am proven not to lag and to be perfectly honest it's a bit of a joke to pretend that it could have been part of the issue. I'm not much for the fairness arguement when really what should happen is what's best for the community.

No one ever said you got all the advantage either. Though if you are bad you most certainly did. If your the source you most certainly did. You got to play the game on your terms. With your delays and timings. If your the cause that's just not going to fly at least in our main sup events anymore. There is no defendable position on lagging.

Oh the inferring my motives your are quite naive to think these guys aren't in the loop on my intentions and tanners. Though poorly written if we wanted to try to ride this disqualification into playing we probably could. Ultimately it worked out nicer for us to not play and to keep the event moving. Good work by the admins on that decision. (Oh and Charlemagne is an admin).

I can't speak to the dosqualification, as I couldn't move my units and didn't even boom correctly in the game we played. Furthermore at times I was so bored I literally stopped playing. That one wouldn't have been made lightly and I highly doubt it was because they were upset their friends got knocked out. Tanner doesn't care, veni also signed up like I did for fun more or less.

[Veni_Vidi_Vici_W]

I can understand the admin decision based on the very odd things going on.

@temutuAoe3

notification

just a few things as a response to your post which is flawed in several ways. I have no problem losing to a better player, but this smells an awful lot like smurfing plus a laggy game overall.

You mention the boom as one of the aspects. Might i remind you that our French booms were similar, yours a little better, but that Ajivs brits outboomed your mate by like 200 points or so?

To claim that you both are lts is just absurd. The canon micro was good, made lots of them, and in my case even using rockets on the culvs and finishing it off with a few goon shots if the culv was low hp, etc. These are already signs of something 2nd lts dont do. Sure i didnt play very good, but to win like this, also with this difference vs Ajiv, AS lts....thats very odd. I didnt play ideal but i had plenty of skirm around also. I made some to many goons, but that is partly due to this bs lagg (i played different previously, my average pop was lower too cause of me being used to cycling through buildings fast but because of delays not always something was trained) where i just cant micro properly making the combo much less effective. And if i cant micro decently or reposition, then many skirms is weaker vs a sudden hus mass than having some more goon, even if its not ideal. You even got to just melee half your musk and spam hus in, because i couldnt move back properly, which makes no sense. Also, at the convenient lagg spikes you spam 15 hus from the side and i cant move my shit and canons at all to even block or go back. Im not used to playing like this, apparently you are.

I have to agree my ping was going a little weird, but i had this eso issue before that it shows like this, cant explain it, but I did a speedtest several times, even to germany (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5706638308) and my cpu/gpu usage is totally fine also. Furthermore, we had no lagg like this in our previous games, and how come your game vs h20/charlemagen was also lagging hard? The lagg was there already at minute 1, both ajiv and me noticed, i even said it in-game. I played another game after and it wasnt this laggy. Lagg does benefit the people used to it, yes.

I cant believe you bring up the civ thing lol. First of all it was just a misunderstanding of me of one of the rules. After your response of how you thought it was, I re-read the rule and then i simply agreed to what you said and changed. So how can you even claim that i didnt want to change? And to say that we "expressed condescension and scorn"? Seriously? i was only questioning the pings at the time and wondering what was going on with eso bug or w.e, but we havent been hostile regarding civ rule or you in general, not at all, i dont get how you can even say this. Ask any player i just want to prevent lagg in any game thats all.

As for my account Veni. I have been very open about this from the start and asked if it was ok or not. I have also mentioned that I had almost zero andes TR experience (was more nr55 guy) and that I havent played TR in a very long time. Everyone knows that I play on Ramex19 as my main since i quit for while before. I just signed up to have some fun TR games again. I also havent practised that much TR, as you can obviously see in the skill level (which you even referred to?). Im not claiming to be a lower level as you do, i just am now. I can better understand your reasoning now and why you decided to use a lower ranked account to carefully calculate your team elo and circumvent the rules to be able to play, but this is not comparable at all.

If you say you are "outsiders" then why is it you signed up with these accounts but never played on them lately and suddenly have such a strong performance? And the games that were played before, were losses to the captain level?

[dicktator_]

I already made my response to sid's post above, but I will also say that immediately DQing without any warning or attempt to get the other side of the story may have been a mistake as well, but as we had no idea who was playing on christian2502 (just knew for sure that it was a smurf) we didn't know who to reach out to. Not adding any rules regarding player lag and what to do in a situation where a tourney participant is lagging to the point where a game cannot be played optimally was a mistake as well.

[Gendarme]

Banning without warning and making up rules on the fly fits your username pretty well. It's a part of the character; don't worry too much about it.

[temutuAoe3]

I already made my response to sid's post above, but I will also say that immediately DQing without any warning or attempt to get the other side of the story may have been a mistake as well, but as we had no idea who was playing on christian2502 (just knew for sure that it was a smurf) we didn't know who to reach out to. Not adding any rules regarding player lag and what to do in a situation where a tourney participant is lagging to the point where a game cannot be played optimally was a mistake as well.

You could have reached out to us very easily. You sure know how to send PM on this forum, right? Or post in the same thread that you locked!

Some fair points there and I respect that you are willing to engage in a dialogue and to admit the shortcomings embedded within the rules (not you personally). The reason for doing what we did in the first place is because we have been mocked and reviled by the very people sitting on the admin panel (though not you). So we thought it would be more impartial if we didn't reveal our identity.

But I still don't get why we have to rest on the mercy of ramex and ajiv for a rematch? That makes no sense whatsoever unless you want to project an illusion of choice where non exists. Why must we beg again them again for a rematch? Why do we need their permission? You really think they'll say yes? Come on be real. The fact that ajiv and ramex get a say on our fate definitely isn't a good idea (they are our opponents that just lost to us!! after all). Here again it makes it seem like admins again favor AJIV by having his say (and not ours) in whether it should be a rematch. There isn't any rule that a lagged game's fate must be arbitrarily decided by those that everyone thinks didn't lag.

AJIV's mate had bad ping, game was laggy, and now ajiv will decided if we can get a rematch?

We have no ill-will or hostility towards anyone and we apologize for any that we caused. I think the fairest option here is to add a clause in rules saying if the game lags then 1 attempt should be made to rehost, and if it again lags hard (like unplayable) then mods can decide the outcome by a cointoss or whatever admins decide or by elo, or by a vote or something - anything. We honestly didn't know lag was such a existential issue.

In this case though, even though we won (and they say they lost because of lag) we say just lets rematch - this time if it lags we will resign.

We apologize if you guys feel we caused the lag on purpose or to gain an unfair advantage.

[temutuAoe3]

"Gichtenlord and _H2O both got clearance from admins before streaming"

Are you serious? Because it directly supports my assertion that the staff (charle, gich, etc) are handing themselves "clearances" that are out of reach for rest of us. Come on - how can you not see that? It doesn't seem like an open and honest way to do things. Why are they randomly getting clearances and others aren't? My objection isn't with the streaming, but what the bias when you just hand out clearances. You will say it's a no big deal, to which I say OK - but how can you pick which issues are big deal and issues aren't unless you have an agenda?

If you truly wanted to be fair you'd give us a second chance rather than make up rules, grant clearances, make us the scapegoat (when there's blame to go around for everyone to some degree).

"You're comparing a minor infraction to blatant ignorance of a rule that quite frankly should be common sense."

The severity of infarction isn't clear until you decide it's clear. It's VERY subjective and drenched in bias. For the sake of being conservative, I assume all rules are equally COMMON SENSE and cannot be violated, not pick and choose a rule. For an outsider who isn't privy to conversations that happen in your group, I have to any and all rules violated will result in getting DQ'd, not certain ones.

"I used process of elimination. _H2O, charlemagen, AJIV, and ramex19 have never lagged that hard. Yet both your games against them lagged. And I think we both know why."

Ok forgive me for being too technical. Lag isn't a binary case like you make it out to be (this guy lags, that guy doesn't, etc). It works GENERALLY yes (a player that has lagged in past will most likely lag in future) but not when a player has a yellow ping. Lag/delay/freeze is contributed overall to the game by - ping, computer resource utilization/strength, geo location and global routing. Lag can be caused by various tangential factors that are both within and beyond the player's control.

Did we lag? Probably. But did veni's yellow ping exacerbate it? (Game vs h2o was lot more playable compared to game vs veni). The evidence certainly supports this hypothesis because the game's lag was worse than h2o'a game. So by the process of elimination, lag went from bad to worse due to Veni. Can I prove that mathematically to the precise decimal how much of a lag he contributed and how much we did?

No, but neither can you. Yet it just seems we will bear the brunt of it all. We are even offering a chance with an auto win for them if it lags for us.

Anyway this is taking way too much of my time and will be my last post. I actually erred by taking this game and tourney more seriously than I should have but my personality forces me to point out of I see inconsistencies and double standards. There will be no arguing with those that have already made up their minds.

gg, gl and hf to all.

[_H2O]

Next time don't smurf in a tournament I would say. Furthermore the details behind it lead to lag. No one thinks you did it for an advantage.

You are lucky the option of a rematch at the will of your opponent is on the table. We wouldn't have made a similar offer in the supremacy side. The whole post comes off with a bit of entitlement where there should be none. It's not hard to just sign up and play straight up.

The admins really should just cut through the BS here and lay out exactly what has happened here lol

[dicktator_]

I already made my response to sid's post above, but I will also say that immediately DQing without any warning or attempt to get the other side of the story may have been a mistake as well, but as we had no idea who was playing on christian2502 (just knew for sure that it was a smurf) we didn't know who to reach out to. Not adding any rules regarding player lag and what to do in a situation where a tourney participant is lagging to the point where a game cannot be played optimally was a mistake as well.

You could have reached out to us very easily. You sure know how to send PM on this forum, right? Or post in the same thread that you locked!

Some fair points there and I respect that you are willing to engage in a dialogue and to admit the shortcomings embedded within the rules (not you personally). The reason for doing what we did in the first place is because we have been mocked and reviled by the very people sitting on the admin panel (though not you). So we thought it would be more impartial if we didn't reveal our identity.

But I still don't get why we have to rest on the mercy of ramex and ajiv for a rematch? That makes no sense whatsoever unless you want to project an illusion of choice where non exists. Why must we beg again them again for a rematch? Why do we need their permission? You really think they'll say yes? Come on be real. The fact that ajiv and ramex get a say on our fate definitely isn't a good idea (they are our opponents that just lost to us!! after all). Here again it makes it seem like admins again favor AJIV by having his say (and not ours) in whether it should be a rematch. There isn't any rule that a lagged game's fate must be arbitrarily decided by those that everyone thinks didn't lag.

AJIV's mate had bad ping, game was laggy, and now ajiv will decided if we can get a rematch?

We have no ill-will or hostility towards anyone and we apologize for any that we caused. I think the fairest option here is to add a clause in rules saying if the game lags then 1 attempt should be made to rehost, and if it again lags hard (like unplayable) then mods can decide the outcome by a cointoss or whatever admins decide or by elo, or by a vote or something - anything. We honestly didn't know lag was such a existential issue.

In this case though, even though we won (and they say they lost because of lag) we say just lets rematch - this time if it lags we will resign.

We apologize if you guys feel we caused the lag on purpose or to gain an unfair advantage.

I thought it was the real temutu on temutu and a smurf on christian2502. I know temutu's english isn't that good and I wasn't sure who was on christian2502. Guess I could've PM'd.

Again, the problem isn't so much the lag as the smurfing. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the lag at all. I thought mentioning the lag would strengthen the argument for DQ, instead it had the opposite effect, as you used it to point out fallacies in my argument and make it look weaker.

The reason AJIV and ramex19's opinions matter here imo is because forcing them to play a rematch they don't want to play is a much more controversial decision than letting them play a rematch they are okay with.

I'm okay with a rematch if you guys say who you are (possibly even play it on your mains), and if you drop the VPNs I'm sure your games will have no lag problems. I can't guarantee that other admins will agree with me. You guys smurfed in a tournament and action needed to be taken, although now I agree that insta DQ without any warning was too hasty.

"Gichtenlord and _H2O both got clearance from admins before streaming"

Are you serious? Because it directly supports my assertion that the staff (charle, gich, etc) are handing themselves "clearances" that are out of reach for rest of us. Come on - how can you not see that? It doesn't seem like an open and honest way to do things. Why are they randomly getting clearances and others aren't? My objection isn't with the streaming, but what the bias when you just hand out clearances. You will say it's a no big deal, to which I say OK - but how can you pick which issues are big deal and issues aren't unless you have an agenda?

If you truly wanted to be fair you'd give us a second chance rather than make up rules, grant clearances, make us the scapegoat (when there's blame to go around for everyone to some degree).

"You're comparing a minor infraction to blatant ignorance of a rule that quite frankly should be common sense."

The severity of infarction isn't clear until you decide it's clear. It's VERY subjective and drenched in bias. For the sake of being conservative, I assume all rules are equally COMMON SENSE and cannot be violated, not pick and choose a rule. For an outsider who isn't privy to conversations that happen in your group, I have to any and all rules violated will result in getting DQ'd, not certain ones.

"I used process of elimination. _H2O, charlemagen, AJIV, and ramex19 have never lagged that hard. Yet both your games against them lagged. And I think we both know why."

Ok forgive me for being too technical. Lag isn't a binary case like you make it out to be (this guy lags, that guy doesn't, etc). It works GENERALLY yes (a player that has lagged in past will most likely lag in future) but not when a player has a yellow ping. Lag/delay/freeze is contributed overall to the game by - ping, computer resource utilization/strength, geo location and global routing. Lag can be caused by various tangential factors that are both within and beyond the player's control.

Did we lag? Probably. But did veni's yellow ping exacerbate it? (Game vs h2o was lot more playable compared to game vs veni). The evidence certainly supports this hypothesis because the game's lag was worse than h2o'a game. So by the process of elimination, lag went from bad to worse due to Veni. Can I prove that mathematically to the precise decimal how much of a lag he contributed and how much we did?

No, but neither can you. Yet it just seems we will bear the brunt of it all. We are even offering a chance with an auto win for them if it lags for us.

Anyway this is taking way too much of my time and will be my last post. I actually erred by taking this game and tourney more seriously than I should have but my personality forces me to point out of I see inconsistencies and double standards. There will be no arguing with those that have already made up their minds.

gg, gl and hf to all.

Anyone who asked for clearance to stream tourney games with delay (beyond the point when gich/_H2O started) would have gotten it. Collect1onn also got permission to stream the 2v2 against me and queen, although he did not use it. We should have updated the tournament rules to reflect this.

I'll say it again: tourney smurfing fucks up seeding and makes it so that players don't know who they're fighting. It's unfair and in the past smurfs have always been DQ'd as soon as sufficient proof could be obtained. This can be seen in some of the ESOC sup tourneys (including the one going on right now). I'm sorry if you didn't realize it but smurfing in a tournament is a more serious infraction than for example streaming one game without permission, and the majority of players know that.

Double standards? You're the only ones who went behind the backs of admins and tourney participants and used smurf accounts to sign up for the tourney. I'll say again that I agree insta DQ without any sort of warning or prior communication was too hasty on our part, but action needed to be taken.

[charlemagen]

I haven't yet posted because of my busy schedule but I have time now so I'll give my opinion. Nick has made great points on the main reasons for disqualification, and Sid has pointed out the short comings in the argument for the disqualification and the rules as a whole in the tournament. But let's be frank here, it is obvious that one of the most major rule violations is smurfing. This IS common sense. Such rule violations really do not need an explanation other than that it was obvious that you guys were smurfing after the second win vs ajiv and ramex. After the Innitial loss that h20 and myself dealt with most the admins and I were on the fence if you guys were indeed smurfing. Ryan didn't play a civ he was most comfortable with nor was he actively playing treaty and I had been inactive for more than a week, and as other treaty players will agree I get rusty rather quickly. So the loss was a surprise but understandable. The following game was deffinetely the eye opener for the admins to convince them of the smurfing that occurred, so it really does not have anything to do favoritism towards players that you claim to be in the, "treaty clique". You guys broke a major rule, plain and simple and it resulted in an unfortunate disqualification. If your had signed up with your normal accounts you could have proven the same point that you we're trying to make and continued into the tournament.

[InsectPoison]

Sid can only win if he deceives his opponent. Just DQ him already ahaha

[Cometk]

@temutuAoe3

notification

sid, if you wanted to poke holes in the rules, you could've pm'd us before the tournament began so we could make revisions. instead you chose to make a cock-up of the tournament by smurfing. and why did you do it? simply because you could. do you have any sense of community?

in regards to players streaming their own matches: normally this would be an edge-case, however since the tournament maps obs function was not fully fleshed out this was a much more common occurrence. rule 4.3 is specifically so non-approved observers of a match may not be present. a player of the match is not a caster, he is a player. i will admit that in the case of _h2o's streamed match, rule 4.5 does fall more into a grey area. ideally he would be streaming with a 2 minute delay, however this is to his discretion as he cannot gain a competitive advantage from streaming his perspective. thus the only possibility is for you to gain the advantage, and if you were to make use of that your team would be disqualified for ghosting.

in regards to rules 1.3, 5.1, and veni: this was actually discussed a lot in the admin chat, myself more opposed to the idea of allowing veni and ajiv to team. however, since veni hadn't been active in treaty in over 3 years, most of the other admins agreed that the combined elo of ajiv + ramex19 was more reflective of their skill level as a team. in the end we tried to level the playing fields of this tournament to achieve a certain degree of fairness. i can tell you that if you had signed up with your "sid18" account (or anything around that benchmark elo, be it 2200 or 2300) you would've been permitted to team with a presumably 2500 elo player so long as we know who the fuck you are.

if you're honest and transparent, you're not going to have an issue. when all you try to do is pull bullshit, what can be said of you?

[Jaeger]

Who is sid?

[Gichtenlord]

Who is sid?

A guy with an infinite amount of smurfs

[Jaeger]

Who is sid?

A guy with an infinite amount of smurfs

Does he have a main acc that he is known by?