Let Odette play!

If i allow her to play, how do i explain to others beeing a bit higher than 1650 that they are not allowed? You think they care if she is more known than others? they act in their own interest and i cant give them a point why there is a difference between them. according to the rules i cant defend my decision.

You could say (for instance) that she didn't reach >1650 rating by playing herself, and that someone else has played for her. (I think there is no question about this, it's a fact). And that player X can play provided that X can prove that someone else played for X to reach that rating. Now, giving a convincing proof for something like this tends to be hard, and for that reason it wouldn't even be worth to read such requests.

 

[SiFly]

Yeah, let all those players prove someone smurfed for them, and ban both.

Problem solved for next time.

 

[bulletchen]

I think the whole problem is that Racer didn't call it "intermediate tournament" but used the word "pro" in it.

If people had the idea it was for ~1400 players, they wouldn't complain this much about the 1650 max rating rule. Robo didn't have issues (besides one dramaqueen) with having these tournaments with a max rating about the same as this tournament uses.

1111

 

[OneMillion]

A lot of what I think on this has already been said. Instead, I'm going to make some miscellaneous observations.

My thoughts: is it really account sharing when the other person is your partner and is in the same room with you?

Yes it is, and if the moderators chose to take action against you, their grounds would be exactly the same as if you had shared your account with someone you've never met personally. I think it is worth emphasising that the rules don't just exist to deal with individual cases, they also exist to regulate the community as a whole. If you were allowed to play in the tournament, it would lend legitimacy to account-sharing as a valid excuse against rating caps. This would bring the account-sharing rule itself into disrepute. I don't blame you for chancing your arm, but I would just write this one off and allow it to stand as a disincentive to account-sharing in the future.

Because we are a community and we assume people won't lie just to get into the tournament and ruining the fun.
This case for me is pretty obvious, a lot of players knows her.. why are we being so picky about this..

That's all well and good for local tournaments (like LeO), but for any open tournaments, you have to have rules to prevent unknown users from free riding off other people's trust. That's why there are anti-smurf rules in the New Player Lobby, for example.

Ask yourself this: When you set the rating limit what was your intention? Was it to set a precedent or to make sure that the people participating in the tournament are below a certain skill level?

I don't know Racer's reasoning, but I presume it's to prevent people artificially deflating their rating in order to enter a competition they have a strong chance of winning. If a 1600 player entered a 1600 tournament after having been 1700 in the past, that would legitimately raise eyebrows.

It's very obvious she is way below 1650, and if your only way to gauge that is going to be based on her rating and you'd ignore all of the other substantial evidence that is presented then what's the point in having a tournament admin to look at these things?

When you held the ZeroEmpires Invitational several years ago, you cut off and seeded players based on rating. Would you have been content to include someone whose skill was clearly higher than their rating at the expense of someone with a higher rating?

Instead of setting a hard limit you should look at average ratings over a period of time instead of highest achieved.

On a practical level, that would be impossible to enforce. Average ratings can be manipulated by taking a selective breaks at desired ratings. This technique is used by smurfs and point whores alike.

It's also very possible that players could get lucky and gain more rating points than their skill level reflects based on how their opponents play on that day.

On any given day, yes. In the long run, every player is going to at least once have a rating that deviates from their true abilities by about 50 points. This is why this tournament will contain no true 1650s, anyone who is genuinely that rating will have been close to 1700 at some point.

It's for <1650 rated players, it's hardly going to be super serious, money on the line, hardcore AoC is it?

That may be, but the New Player Lobby has no money on the line, and that hasn't stopped it from being an unenjoyable experience for many because of smurfing. If ensuring a balanced tournament involves turning down some legitimate 1600 players to keep artificially low ratings away, I think it's a fair compromise.

Just one final thing. I think it would be fair to redefine the ceiling to 1700. The cap may be 1650, but only 1600s are unlikely to have exceeded 1650 at some point. That way Odette can compete, and 1650 would be a more realistic skill maximum, if that is what Racer intended.

 

[Coffee]

If you make an exception for Odette then yes make one for craigert. So far we have two people that need some flexibility? Who are these theoretical masses that will sign up adding admin nightmares. It's a small community and I'm sure it won't be too much trouble to examine a few cases in which players are very close to the "line"

As I've grown slowly from the 1600 HD starter elo it always goes in stages. Per every 100 elo, it seems there are two brackets below 50 and above 50. After you hit a new all time high you usually get knocked back down shortly after. As you get used to the new challenges you are able to hold stead around your new rating over time. Then you proceed to the upper half where you usually start winning more than losing and eventually hit that next bar. The process then repeats until your motivation to improve has maxed out.

A one time max rate is just a really bad way to draw a hard line. If the players are very close just look at recent activity/elo. Again you'll only have a few exceptions to look into.

I think it's appropriate for anyone over 1650 to be initially denied but should have an option for an appeal. The appeal should be reviewed. So far we have two, odette and craigert. Let them both play.

 

@ultrafog

Anyway I think the tourney was made for <1600, the 1650 highest rate is already the added flexibility cuz you start we 1600 rating and you could have won some games in the beginning. And as racer already said, more "flexibility" would mean that more higher rated players would want to join aswell, which would ruin the fun for all others and it would be a lot of extra admin work to analyse all those individuals.

 

[Coffee]

@ultrafog

Anyway I think the tourney was made for <1600, the 1650 highest rate is already the added flexibility cuz you start we 1600 rating and you could have won some games in the beginning. And as racer already said, more "flexibility" would mean that more higher rated players would want to join aswell, which would ruin the fun for all others and it would be a lot of extra admin work to analyse all those individuals.

A regular 1650+ player should not be allowed to play. But that's my main point. Hitting the rating once doesn't make you that skill level. You have to establish yourself at any elo to claim you are xxxx elo.

If <1600 was the goal then 1600 should have been the stated cutoff and 1650 was the flexibility limit. That you don't have to publicly post though. When you are dealing with mass signups you just have to be a little more stiff because of volume. But here is just one case in which all the facts are known. Odette is not a true or regular 1680.

Here's the facts: 1680 was achieved by an account share. That should be handled by moderators. It's very clear odette falls in the elo rating for the tournament. I'm not familiar with how long bans are for account sharing but if the time is up before the tourney, or there is no ban placed, then why would racer not allow it? That becomes his own version of a ban.

P.S. my name is Ultrafong not Ultrafog.

 

[RacerFXX]

@ultrafog

Anyway I think the tourney was made for <1600, the 1650 highest rate is already the added flexibility cuz you start we 1600 rating and you could have won some games in the beginning. And as racer already said, more "flexibility" would mean that more higher rated players would want to join aswell, which would ruin the fun for all others and it would be a lot of extra admin work to analyse all those individuals.

yep my thoughts were to make this tournament for the <1600 players with 50 points of tolerance for "lucky" starters. i probably should have mentioned in the rules to make it a bit more clear.

If you make an exception for Odette then yes make one for craigert. So far we have two people that need some flexibility? Who are these theoretical masses that will sign up adding admin nightmares. It's a small community and I'm sure it won't be too much trouble to examine a few cases in which players are very close to the "line"

There were actually around 7 sign ups beeing to high. i just deleted them and send the player a message. so there are a bit more than these 2 exceptions...

 

[SouFire]

Sharing account is responsibility for those who allow it, the simple fact of sharing has nothing wrong, problem is when they do bad things, then both players should be punished.

Racer is not a voobly moderator so he can't judge Odette for that cause it is not his problem, if you guys are telling that sharing account is illegal then i don't see folks complaining when Viper is smurfing on Steam with a borrowed nick, don't be hypocrites any of you would also smurf for your girlfriend, well if you had one, she is a legit low skilled player, you can see her stream or her recordings and notice it immediately, she needed to make this petition personal to Racer since it's his tournament and not making it public, maybe joining with another ID that haven't been touched by his boyfriend or any other player.

 

[OneMillion]

if you guys are telling that sharing account is illegal then i don't see folks complaining when Viper is smurfing on Steam with a borrowed nick

I don't see why you're defending account-sharing by pointing out that Viper does it on Steam. Viper's Steam smurfing is an arse move by almost every possible standard and the fact that he's looked up to by so many players makes it even worse.

don't be hypocrites any of you would also smurf for your girlfriend

If you would smurf for your girlfriend, you probably play this game too much!

 

[SouFire]

if you guys are telling that sharing account is illegal then i don't see folks complaining when Viper is smurfing on Steam with a borrowed nick

I don't see why you're defending account-sharing by pointing out that Viper does it on Steam. Viper's Steam smurfing is an arse move by almost every possible standard and the fact that he's looked up to by so many players makes it even worse.

don't be hypocrites any of you would also smurf for your girlfriend

If you would smurf for your girlfriend, you probably play this game too much!

:roll:

The answer is deep below in your heart

The decision depends on Racer, but seriously sharing accounts for a game isn't bad unless someone uses it to do bad stuff, but the fact is she never shared her account MBL used her computer while sleeping together, at this point having a discussion about that is kinda ridiculous, she ain't 1650+ it was a random event in life, in any circumstances if you are against it then post an official complain in voobly asking to ban both players which is the right step according to your logic, or simply just let her play the tournament because she meets the level requirements.

 

[von_miguel]

Why is there 7 pages of meaningless blabber when the rules are clear? All these people who want special privileges just because they are "known"..

Aoczone these days :roll:

 

[Milmano]

Whilst i do like Odette i do feel that the rules are very clear here

It is also obvious that breaking the rule for one individual will leave a lot of other players that "got lucky" being left out.

Im sure there will be another event in the future that Odette can take part

 

[OneMillion]

The decision depends on Racer, but seriously sharing accounts for a game isn't bad unless someone uses it to do bad stuff, but the fact is she never shared her account MBL used her computer while sleeping together, at this point having a discussion about that is kinda ridiculous, she ain't 1650+ it was a random event in life, in any circumstances if you are against it then post an official complain in voobly asking to ban both players which is the right step according to your logic, or simply just let her play the tournament because she meets the level requirements.

I think you're missing the point - account sharing of any form is against the rules because its unfair on anyone who plays against the account, who has no way of knowing that what seems like a balanced match-up is in fact highly imbalanced. Granting people exemptions from rating caps based on breaking the rules sets a precedent that rule breaking can be used as a valid defence against other rules, which in turn brings the rules themselves into disrepute. Better to stick to the rating cap and let it stand as an example to anyone thinking of letting a friend play on their account, rather than let it go have someone else at the next tournament claiming, "but I only let my boyfriend/best friend play..."

 

[BlotchedyDooDah]

im still sad that i cant play because i hit 1760 at one point

 

[SouFire]

The decision depends on Racer, but seriously sharing accounts for a game isn't bad unless someone uses it to do bad stuff, but the fact is she never shared her account MBL used her computer while sleeping together, at this point having a discussion about that is kinda ridiculous, she ain't 1650+ it was a random event in life, in any circumstances if you are against it then post an official complain in voobly asking to ban both players which is the right step according to your logic, or simply just let her play the tournament because she meets the level requirements.

I think you're missing the point - account sharing of any form is against the rules because its unfair on anyone who plays against the account, who has no way of knowing that what seems like a balanced match-up is in fact highly imbalanced. Granting people exemptions from rating caps based on breaking the rules sets a precedent that rule breaking can be used as a valid defence against other rules, which in turn brings the rules themselves into disrepute. Better to stick to the rating cap and let it stand as an example to anyone thinking of letting a friend play on their account, rather than let it go have someone else at the next tournament claiming, "but I only let my boyfriend/best friend play..."

Then again i don't see your official complain in voobly about this, or in steam forums for what viper does, if you are going to act like the righteous boy then do the right thing and take more action and less bla bla bla.

The rules were made by Racer and he did put the rating cap counting on lucky winners, what he wants is players around the level, so far she fills that and made a confession about what happened to his nick, Racer is the only one that can judge her because he is hosting it, so far he is not going to let her play, the community is really small and acting so strictly is bad for the game, there is a point where the reason is ahead the rules when it is fair.

Imagine if katsuni would like to join this but you would ban him because emin gave him a 2k nick to spectate 2k games :lol:

 

[OneMillion]

I'm not lodging complaints because those things are not my decision. I am simply giving my opinion in a topic that was designed to bring forward a debate. Will you lodge a complaint to Racer over her not being allowed to play? This may be a small community, but there are more than enough people out there who are capable of taking advantage of laxly enforced rules. It wouldn't even surprise me if the seven Racer turned away were smurfs trying to chance their arm...

Imagine if katsuni would like to join this but you would ban him because emin gave him a 2k nick to spectate 2k games :lol:

Was this endorsed by Voobly? I'm just curious because Rgeadn had his rating reset over reaching 2000 on a shared account.

 

[Odette]

Was this endorsed by Voobly? I'm just curious because Rgeadn had his rating reset over reaching 2000 on a shared account.

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but how do you get your rating reset? Is that a form of punishment or can you also request that?
The idea of not being able to participate in any tourney ever (unless I improve my skill to be able to compete with 1650+) really sucks.

 

[OneMillion]

Was this endorsed by Voobly? I'm just curious because Rgeadn had his rating reset over reaching 2000 on a shared account.

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but how do you get your rating reset? Is that a form of punishment or can you also request that?
The idea of not being able to participate in any tourney ever (unless I improve my skill to be able to compete with 1650+) really sucks.

If a user is point trading (which is what account-sharing falls under), two things can happen: if their rating is above 1600, their rating is reset to 1600, and they'll have to start all over again. If the rating is below 1600 or are deliberately giving away points, the account is banned, so that the player doesn't gain anything out of it. An example of the first is Richard's resetting last year. The second would be Metal's account ban last summer.

Don't worry about any of that though, this is only for people who are doing it regularly enough for it to become noticeable. As you said yourself, it was just a bit of fun, and you didn't mean anything by it. I'm sorry if my post scared you, I was just interested that Katsuni was allowed to share his account with Emin. I'm sure you'll have plenty of chances to compete in other noob tournaments. I would suggest you sign up for the Crazy Memb Subscriber Masters 2, but somehow I get the feeling you're not a lober[linethru]boy[/linethru](girl)...

 

[Dan]

Why is there 7 pages of meaningless blabber when the rules are clear? All these people who want special privileges just because they are "known"..

Aoczone these days :roll:

this is so true! a random person would get barely any support and would get told to **** off

 

[nhoobish]

Was this endorsed by Voobly? I'm just curious because Rgeadn had his rating reset over reaching 2000 on a shared account.

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but how do you get your rating reset? Is that a form of punishment or can you also request that?
The idea of not being able to participate in any tourney ever (unless I improve my skill to be able to compete with 1650+) really sucks.

Requesting did not use to work, I doubt they changed it.

 

[Shmolagin]

Was this endorsed by Voobly? I'm just curious because Rgeadn had his rating reset over reaching 2000 on a shared account.

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but how do you get your rating reset? Is that a form of punishment or can you also request that?
The idea of not being able to participate in any tourney ever (unless I improve my skill to be able to compete with 1650+) really sucks.

If you routinely break rules, your rating might be reset or penalized, depending on the offense.
You can read the banning and rating policies for more information.

 

as a voobly and aoczone mod you (implicitly) encourage her to break rules? :x :lol:

 

[OneMillion]

I had a thought on the rating requirement which caused this drama in the first place: what if the requirement were your highest rating had to be less than 1650 or the average of your current rating and your highest rating had to be less than 1600? The idea here is that someone like Blotch who played 1v1s against his dad would have his "1700+" rating balanced out by the fact that he is in fact 1300+ (or whatever rating he has now). Similarly, Odette has said herself that she is clearly a noob. If she's around 1500 or so, then her current and highest rating would end up being less than 1600, which would smooth out the artificial boost from MbL. Requiring this average to be below 1600 would be require that you really be a noob and not someone who got 1651 once, but consistently floats at 1620.

This criterion is still open to smurfing, but then again, so is any rating requirement. What's important is making smurfing uneconomical. A 1700 would have to go through a lot of effort to drop his rating to 1500, and at that stage, he could be done in for point-trading. Not foolproof, but then again, nothing is and it would give a bit of extra flexibility, be it in Blotch or Odette's case.