Early signs

[Jamo]

I think I have to clear one thing up:
Of course, in my opinion, this report is about the abusers (pwnerer and dodo), whose behavior I find highly disrespectful! Not about the others! By no means I wanna report anyone for early signing and it failing once. I have never reported anyone because I think in most cases there really is no need to do so and create more drama. In Kiwi's first post, he did nothing else but stating what happened and I assumed by leaving it to the Mods then they will handle in the right way with the abusers and leave the others out (or give them a warning, whatever, idc).
But then Haza started this discussion and made the report a lot about him and the, let's call them "one time abusers", I didnt even realize that until we discussed in Discord. Of course I then disagreed with many of his opinions above and couldn't understand why he thinks what pwnerer did was not disrespectful. That is why this discussion has become a bit excessive. That's all. I am also a bit shocked how people seem to think I would report because of one early sign of someone...

[Kreutertee]

I think a poll would be best to get the majority's opinion.

And the thing is, even if the result would be that option #2 shall be enforced, it will only be enforced upon ban request.

And then ban requests - as of now - will be made at ones discretion. That means only if people feel someone's abusing the system to a degree which is unbearable, the offenders will be reported. Otherwise other players will just be swapped in.

The most important part for all of this is transparency. If people know what is to be expected and how thr LIHL management will rule on certain rule violations, the surprises before or after a report will be reduced to a minimum.

[Meshtar]

Maybe it's good to see how we came to the decision to treat early signs like we do. This is a bit of repetition what @Hazardous said before and @Fadingsuns said in the previous post as well.

First of all: we would have preferred to have kept the old signing system, where you can just sign once you left a game. However, this is not possible at the moment, so we need something else to regulate this. I think there are broadly 3 ways to deal with it:
1. Try banning all 'early signs' (before game ended)
2. Unvouch everyone who is unable to play within 5 minutes because they wrongfully signed.
3. Act on people who on purpose take risks and don't take others into account and excuse the others.

We decided to go for the 3rd option. #1 is for me not really an option, because it is not enforceable. Especially if people get sniped because some secretly sign 2,3 seconds too early, we are completely powerless.

We also decided not to go for #2 because we don't want to be unvouching people with no bad intentions. If you genuinely believe the game is over seeing the leaks, and you sign and you see you made a mistake, we find it too hard a penalty that you cannot play all evening anymore for that. It's an honest mistake, made possible by the non-optimal circumstances.

So in the end we chose option #3, to distinguish between people who take risks on purpose for their own sake (signing 2,3 levels early without knowing if it will end) and people who made an honest mistake signing. This is what @FadingSuns for example did with da_pwnerer, when he let him sit out that game after pwnerer signed early for the 2nd time in one game.

There are pro's and con's to both #2 and #3, for example #2 is more clear, #3 is more fair that you don't get punished for a mistake, #2 gets 'well-intended' players unvouched #3 lets other players wait in lobby for long.

You can also say that no matter how 'sure' you are, you still take a risk by signing before the king actually died, so you can be punished for it. I am not insensitive to all those arguments, and there is a lot to say for #2 too, but this is the option we chose, as a decision between several choices which all had ups and downs. That is the decision of the mods, but if you think a majority of the people would rather have #2, you are welcome to do a poll about it, and I will have no problems carrying out #2 if it turns out most people prefer that.

If this is the way you decided to handle these situations I have no problem with that, all fair as long as its same rules for everyone.
That being said, Achilles and myself deserve at least an explanation why our case wasn't handled the same way (option 2). I can assume several possibilities

1. At start you chose option 3, so Achilles and me got unvouched for the exact same thing, but when more important players than us two are on the line, story changes. I respect you too much to assume this option, but theoretically it is possible.

2. At start you chose option 3, so Achilles and me got unvouched for the exact same thing, but now you feel it was over the top and that it might create too much drama if you continue enforcing option 3, so you are switching to option 2.

3. Someone decided that Achilles and myself had malicious intent (!) to ruin the game for others when we signed early even if it was done during wave with huge king leak and sends so you decided to ban us for the perceived maliciousness. if this is the case I'd like a clarification how it was decided that Achilles and myself are that kind of assholes.

4. Ace who handled my case didn't tell the truth when he told me (I can link our mutual chat as proof)" that this was discussed among moderators and decided we are getting a ban also to serve as warning for people who might do it in future and to try to prevent people from tk signing" but instead Ace decided this on his own to get Achilles and me banned. Everyone knows now my history with Ace, but I also don't think he would do this kind of thing no matter our mutual lack of love and he seemed genuinely reluctant to actually ban me for this.

5. Some other possibility I don't see atm?

I think we deserve a clarification at least.
This is the topic where Achilles and me got banned
viewtopic.php?f=85&t=118175
Oh ye, as Ace said in that topic there was an announcement from Hazardous in discord that people who get reported for early signing will be banned. Not judged by impact it had, or if they would wait more for the game or not, as Haza argued here (btw our signing had no impact whatsoever also), but simply banned(!) Anyway, you can see how this defies logic and I would like a straight answer, no bullshit please

[dweiler]

I would give you a clear answer if I had it. I think we were too 'vague' about this as moderators and did not really address the issue too clearly.

The same day there were some other issues about building and selling and Supreme/Tin so it just passed by really quickly and we did not overthink this issue until later when we discussed more thoroughly how to act on it and came up with the way we do it now.

I looked back on the Staff Discord chat, and I can assure you there was nothing personal or with bad intent. It was mainly like this (I won't add the exact quote and who said what because it was talked about in private).

"We said in the announcement we would act upon people TK-signing. So even though this will lead to more reports we must do a 1-day ban?
"Yes, 1 day is fine."

-> to next issue

So looking back on that, we haven't been straight with how we deal it, leading to an unvouch for you and no unvouch for others. Sorry for that.

[Don_Killuminati]

I got diddled once, i was obs semi afk and wanted to play next game, i did check send area lvl15 and saw send, so i decided to alt tab and sign for next, unfortunatelly game was hosted already with 4players from that game. I joined obs and asked to ppl from last game to roll so the lower one would give me his spot but one of them didnt answer so i couldnt pleee. Adding to this many games i couldnt sign cuz i do king control.
All in all, i do believe we are civilized enough to make agreements without asking for any unvouch which its imo not efficient, proved by mesh case.

[Crazy_Skeleton]

I completly understand the intentions Micky, still U can not not unvouch any player if he is in game within 5 mins. Even if he signed 20 mins before game ended, no rule was broken.

[HazarDous]

I completly understand the intentions Micky, still U can not not unvouch any player if he is in game within 5 mins. Even if he signed 20 mins before game ended, no rule was broken.

No. This is a league and therefore, mutual respect is expected. If moderators deem you are not respectful and mannered enough to be a part of the league, they may warn you and unvouch you as they deem appropriate.

[FadingSuns]

I completly understand the intentions Micky, still U can not not unvouch any player if he is in game within 5 mins. Even if he signed 20 mins before game ended, no rule was broken.

This makes no sense. You trow a coin and if ur lucky and game ends u dont break rule, but if u got tails and game doesnt end u break a rule.... hmmm... for me the act of trowing thw coin (early sign) is the one that should be punished, independently if u got head or tails u are being disrespectfull. If u do a honest mistake, u sign when a lot of creeps and sends going mid, u wont get a ban. But if u consistently trow the coin before the sending level starts, be sure we will warn u and ban u. That is gona be punished as abuse. Be aware that not every specific situation is included in lihl rules and that is basically mods duty to judge and apply
the common sense that not always can be covered by rules.

[nukid]

as donki said, were all civilized enuff and usually every1 here follows the rules. and if he doesnt...he gets a punishment, but its pretty rare isnt it?

but at the moment we dont have a clear rule exept for "show up 5mins after game started". so we have a grey area....and i dont feel bad if i earlysign. cuz people will abuse grey areas in every part of life and pretty much every1 does it right?

if we just imply the rule "do not !sign before either king has died" im sure pretty sure everyone will obey it simply because the rule is there and boom problem solved.

i dont see the big deal here, what would be negative about that rule, help me out maybe im too dumb

[FadingSuns]

as donki said, were all civilized enuff and usually every1 here follows the rules. and if he doesnt...he gets a punishment, but its pretty rare isnt it?

but at the moment we dont have a clear rule except for "show up 5mins after game started". so we have a grey area....and i dont feel bad if i earlysign. cuz people will abuse grey areas in every part of life and pretty much every1 does it right?

if we just imply the rule "do not !sign before either king has died" im sure pretty sure everyone will obey it simply because the rule is there and boom problem solved.

i dont see the big deal here, what would be negative about that rule, help me out maybe im too dumb

The 5 mins rule is totally obsolete and was never meant to deal with the case we are currently discussing. The 5 min rule is created for people that, NOT PLAYING A GAME, sign and dont appear before 5 mins, was basically meant for those who end a game, sign, and afked long (to go smoke for example) and made ppl wait a lot of time on lobby. But was not mean to deal with current discussion because it was IMPOSSIBLE to sign while u were already playing a lihl game, since u needed to sign on clan lihl channel.

So the current rule is for deal, ONLY, thoses cases when ppl sign (not currently playing a game) and not appear in a considerable amount of time (5 mins).

The current situation cannot be handle by a new rule (as u propose) because mainly 2 reasons:

1) we are waiting for a technical implementation to be done to not allow to sign while u playing
2) It is impossible to enforce that rule from our side (lihl mods) because its almost impossible to demonstrate if someone has signed 5/10/30 secs before game ends, theres not a direct link between discord and bnet (that is what we want to get technically fixed on point 1).

So, given the fact that we dont have a rule for it, and we cannot rely on players responsibility because its demonstrated that some people consistently abuse of it, we need to try control it to have the lowest possible impact on game.

How? by chasing the abusers of the rule

What we understand as abuse? Let me list some examples:

1) u sign even before sending level starts. Actually u should even wait to leaks start going mid, even if its 100% clear that both teams will clog and game gona end on this lvl, u should NEVER sign before sending lvl starts.

2) U sell all towers, not necessarily on a send lvl, ur team just give up on a random level, and since u know game gona end, u early sign and snipe the whole opposite team. Thats another clear abuse i recon.

3) u do a honest mistake and early sign, game doesnt end, luckily another game doesnt start cuz not enought signed players, but u never unsign.

I hope it is pretty clear for all what are we talking when we try to differentiate a honest mistake (u signed when sends going mid and it rlly looks like gg, but other team survive) than we u abuse.

I really hope that ppl understand why we cannot create a new rule and why we trying to deal with this this way.

[Crazy_Skeleton]

I understand that point 3 is ur example for not being banned for early sign, yes?

[Mind]

I understand?

No.

[HodoR_]

lihl seems like so much fun, more like league of housewives

[TinSoldier]

ur life seems so much fun, reading an online forum for a group that u have nothing to do with

[dweiler]

lihl seems like so much fun, more like league of housewives

Glad to see you like it here, you may enjoy my personal website too then: http://www.knittingparadise.com/