Your Warcraft III username: Ivan.bratmi
Realm/Gateway: server.eurobattle.net
Why are you banned: not cooperating
Why you should be unbanned: there was desire for cooperation, but no team agreement on when to send
Ban request: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106479&p=420553&hilit=b0zata#p420553
Any further thoughts: There are several false statements made by admin Civiliznations in his reply to the ban request, i really hope that they are not intentional:
1. "B0zata was the one that forced send of warrs on 1 by sending then pinging/alerting in chat."
No! As can be seen in game replay, the initiation to send at Level 1 was by me, immediately after game start! There was even enough time to start a worker at that point of time. The call was made again several seconds later again by b0zata, and still there was no opposition to this call. There were no other calls for cooperation. Instead, player fagggot was too busy cursing red for chosing the mode, and questioning me for not building 4 morphlings when the game mode only allows me to build 1. This started a lot of back and forth cursing which proceeded to the game end. It was later, after the opposition didn't leak at Lvl 1 when fagggot started cursing again why we send to lvl1.
2. "What Ivan is referring to is this comment from 4 minutes earlier: (17:32 / Allied) b0zata: go 12 / 17 This is a suggestion that nobody discussed so there is no indication that the team had agreed to send 12 instead."
False again. As can be seen in chat, I did agree to the 12/17 call and neither green not pink opposed. Again, no other calls for cooperation were made at this point. Player fagggot didn't see this at all as he chose to ignore b0zata.
3. "I am going to give them both a 1 day warning ban for not cooperating however, because they have an attitude that if 2 are sending and 2 are disagreeing then they have the right to force send as they did so earlier in the game and expect the other 2 to send as well. Yet, when you and green send on 10 they refuse to send with you, which hurt the team."
This is the reason that admin gives for mine and b0zata's ban. NEVER did we say or expect that 2 players have the right to force send and expect the other 2 to send with them. NEVER! What we want to do is to play to MAXIMIZE THE CHANCE OF WINNING. Always sending with your teammates even if they are not very good is not the ultimate super smart play in LTD. Easy example, if enemy is saving for 17 and your teammates decide to send on 16 where there is not a chance for winning, it is not smart to send with them to prolong the round. Or vice versa, if the enemy is saving for 17, and your team really desperately needs value to have any chance to survive and cannot contest 17, you need to send every level and not save 20 for example. Apparently, this is not obvious to a lot of players, including admin Civiliznations.
To finish on a nice note, lets look at how the game ended. Our call was 12/17, expecting the opposition to save not very much on 15, a level where we are relatively strong. I explained that to player fagggot, and he said that there was no way i am going to stop my wave. Of course, I did stop it very easy. But since he wanted to prove his point, he leaked a lot more (probably on purpose) while lacking kraken on his side and then he holds the king not killing two behemoths on 1 hit, ensuring our loss. If we survived, it was easy win on lvl 17, proving that 12/17 was the correct call, despite poorly executed due to him trying hard to ruin the game.
As a result of this, b0zata and I get banned for not cooperation, and player fagggot who ruins the game does not. B0zata and I moved recently to this server from a russian one, expecting higher quality of games and players. More than reverting the ban, I am curious to know why the admin is lying (again, i hope it is not intentional) and why is the cancerous behaviour of players like fagggot encouraged here.
Unban Ivan.bratmi and b0zata. And some questions.
Moderator: ENT Staff
-
Quetra
- Protector of Nature
- Posts: 4775
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 49 times
Re: Unban Ivan.bratmi and b0zata. And some questions.
Hi @bratmi,
I never questioned that you both called for send on 1. What I said was B0zata was the one that forced the send. He was the first to send a warrior/alert that he'd sent.
1:12 <b0zata> 0x10: Immediate order: [Warrior] (flags: 0x0040)
I'd just like to point out that you were the first to throw out an insult. fagggot simply gave his opinion on your build/what you should build, and you responded with 'fucking retard read the mode'.
What is the 'right play' is firstly very subjective and secondly immaterial. What matters is what the majority of the team thinks, otherwise those 'not very good teammates' would take the same attitude as you and say 'I was maximising the chance of winning'. When I made that comment about '2 players having the right to force send' it was my impression from this chat:
(08:20 / Allied) b0zata: we are 2 on 2 votes all the time
(08:21 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: none disagreed
(08:22 / Allied) b0zata: so
(08:24 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: and orange send
(08:25 / Allied) b0zata: we send
The suggestion b0zata is making is that because you were 2 on 2 votes, it was ok for him to send there. This links to level 10 when you both accuse him of solo sending when he did exactly what you did earlier in the game: make a call, then send before it was discussed. The difference is that when fagggot disagreed with your call on lvl 1, he sent alongside you anyways:
1:29 <fagggot> 0x10: Immediate order: [Warrior] (flags: 0x0040)
You both refused to add any signifcant send on 10, despite both of your teammates sending. This is refusing to cooperate because you wanted 12, on a 2-2 tie. Taking b0z's comments into consideration and with his earlier logic you should have sended.
Should fagggot have forced a send on 10? No. Perhaps I should have made it clearer to the OP in the post, as this is maybe not clear enough:
However the difference between his actions and yours is that in the end he sent with the team anyways despite his disagreement.
If you are referring to the various insults/arguments from the game, as I said at the beginning you threw out the first insult. You should expect players to flame back when you do that. We also only ban for 'excessive flame'. If it was for any instance of flame you would be banned for that too (not that I am suggesting you should be.) We also have a policy to encourage people to report of not banning the OP (unless the offence is severe or he is posting the request to avoid a ban). Any player is entitled to submit a ban request of that player and we will review their actions then.
A 1 day ban is lower than we usually ban for refusing to coop, and was intended as a warning. I am willing to unban you if you indicate to me that you understand what I have said here and will not offend again. You must wait a sufficient amount of time/repeat requests for send if they didn't see it before sending, not send at the start of the round and then ping to force your team to send. And if someone else does force send on you, it is still important that you send if it's a save send. You can submit a ban request for them after the game if you believe it was a sufficient violation of the rules.
1. "B0zata was the one that forced send of warrs on 1 by sending then pinging/alerting in chat."
No! As can be seen in game replay, the initiation to send at Level 1 was by me, immediately after game start! There was even enough time to start a worker at that point of time. The call was made again several seconds later again by b0zata, and still there was no opposition to this call.
I never questioned that you both called for send on 1. What I said was B0zata was the one that forced the send. He was the first to send a warrior/alert that he'd sent.
1:12 <b0zata> 0x10: Immediate order: [Warrior] (flags: 0x0040)
There were no other calls for cooperation. Instead, player fagggot was too busy cursing red for chosing the mode, and questioning me for not building 4 morphlings when the game mode only allows me to build 1. This started a lot of back and forth cursing which proceeded to the game end.
I'd just like to point out that you were the first to throw out an insult. fagggot simply gave his opinion on your build/what you should build, and you responded with 'fucking retard read the mode'.
Spoiler!
This is the reason that admin gives for mine and b0zata's ban. NEVER did we say or expect that 2 players have the right to force send and expect the other 2 to send with them. NEVER! What we want to do is to play to MAXIMIZE THE CHANCE OF WINNING. Always sending with your teammates even if they are not very good is not the ultimate super smart play in LTD.
What is the 'right play' is firstly very subjective and secondly immaterial. What matters is what the majority of the team thinks, otherwise those 'not very good teammates' would take the same attitude as you and say 'I was maximising the chance of winning'. When I made that comment about '2 players having the right to force send' it was my impression from this chat:
(08:20 / Allied) b0zata: we are 2 on 2 votes all the time
(08:21 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: none disagreed
(08:22 / Allied) b0zata: so
(08:24 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: and orange send
(08:25 / Allied) b0zata: we send
The suggestion b0zata is making is that because you were 2 on 2 votes, it was ok for him to send there. This links to level 10 when you both accuse him of solo sending when he did exactly what you did earlier in the game: make a call, then send before it was discussed. The difference is that when fagggot disagreed with your call on lvl 1, he sent alongside you anyways:
1:29 <fagggot> 0x10: Immediate order: [Warrior] (flags: 0x0040)
You both refused to add any signifcant send on 10, despite both of your teammates sending. This is refusing to cooperate because you wanted 12, on a 2-2 tie. Taking b0z's comments into consideration and with his earlier logic you should have sended.
Should fagggot have forced a send on 10? No. Perhaps I should have made it clearer to the OP in the post, as this is maybe not clear enough:
What Ivan is referring to is this comment from 4 minutes earlier: (17:32 / Allied) b0zata: go 12 / 17 This is a suggestion that nobody discussed so there is no indication that the team had agreed to send 12 instead. However the same can be said for your suggestion for 10: 16:13 / Allied) fagggot: save
(16:15 / Allied) fagggot: full 10
However the difference between his actions and yours is that in the end he sent with the team anyways despite his disagreement.
More than reverting the ban, I am curious to know why the admin is lying (again, i hope it is not intentional) and why is the cancerous behaviour of players like fagggot encouraged here.
If you are referring to the various insults/arguments from the game, as I said at the beginning you threw out the first insult. You should expect players to flame back when you do that. We also only ban for 'excessive flame'. If it was for any instance of flame you would be banned for that too (not that I am suggesting you should be.) We also have a policy to encourage people to report of not banning the OP (unless the offence is severe or he is posting the request to avoid a ban). Any player is entitled to submit a ban request of that player and we will review their actions then.
A 1 day ban is lower than we usually ban for refusing to coop, and was intended as a warning. I am willing to unban you if you indicate to me that you understand what I have said here and will not offend again. You must wait a sufficient amount of time/repeat requests for send if they didn't see it before sending, not send at the start of the round and then ping to force your team to send. And if someone else does force send on you, it is still important that you send if it's a save send. You can submit a ban request for them after the game if you believe it was a sufficient violation of the rules.
-
bratmi
- Armored Tree
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:30 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Unban Ivan.bratmi and b0zata. And some questions.
So, we are banned for not agreeing to send when the other 2 players agreed to send. So wherever 2 players agree to send, they can do it, and even more so, the others will be forced to send with them if it's a save-send. With that being said, there is no need to unban me. I am happy to know that wherever I play with b0zata, or other teammate, we can send wherever we want, and if we "save" (i assume this means at least one round, as it is a concept that is not defined anywhere) we can ban anyone who doesn't agree. I will use this thread for future reference. Thank you very much.
I am curious to know, who decided it would be a great idea to IMPOSE A RULE ON GAMEPLAY, since by your words, "the 'right play' is firstly very subjective and secondly immaterial". This particular rule creates a "meta", where players believe that you should only send if the enemy will leak to king, which is very wrong and low skill, and they like to impose that belief on others. Unfortunately, I've seen this even in "high-level" games, including twitch streams and youtube videos.
I am curious to know, who decided it would be a great idea to IMPOSE A RULE ON GAMEPLAY, since by your words, "the 'right play' is firstly very subjective and secondly immaterial". This particular rule creates a "meta", where players believe that you should only send if the enemy will leak to king, which is very wrong and low skill, and they like to impose that belief on others. Unfortunately, I've seen this even in "high-level" games, including twitch streams and youtube videos.
-
bratmi
- Armored Tree
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:30 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Unban Ivan.bratmi and b0zata. And some questions.
Since you took the time to answer everything, I should also add the following. Obviously, i really was the first to throw an insult. It was triggered by the n-th game in a row, where instead of having fun playing, i have to deal with other players. I think I will get used to it soon, and accept that sometimes I can get banned for doing the right thing and it is better to lose the game.
-
Quetra
- Protector of Nature
- Posts: 4775
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 49 times
Re: Unban Ivan.bratmi and b0zata. And some questions.
So, we are banned for not agreeing to send when the other 2 players agreed to send. So wherever 2 players agree to send, they can do it, and even more so, the others will be forced to send with them if it's a save-send. With that being said, there is no need to unban me. I am happy to know that wherever I play with b0zata, or other teammate, we can send wherever we want, and if we "save" (i assume this means at least one round, as it is a concept that is not defined anywhere) we can ban anyone who doesn't agree. I will use this thread for future reference. Thank you very much.
You can quote whatever you want out of context but it won't help you when you are banned. You completely missed the point of what I just said. You were banned for not sending alongside 2 players on 10, yes. Refusing to send here was costly to the team. But you'll notice I didn't condone the force sending, what I said was cooperate with the play and then submit a ban request afterwards if the violation was sufficient. I also find it ironic that this is your takeaway from what I said when it was your attitude in the first place, and exactly what you did in this game on an earlier level.
I am curious to know, who decided it would be a great idea to IMPOSE A RULE ON GAMEPLAY, since by your words, "the 'right play' is firstly very subjective and secondly immaterial". This particular rule creates a "meta", where players believe that you should only send if the enemy will leak to king, which is very wrong and low skill, and they like to impose that belief on others. Unfortunately, I've seen this even in "high-level" games, including twitch streams and youtube videos.
I don't really understand how you took the existence of the rule about cooperating with your team and came to this conclusion. Not sending with the team plan is not coopearting and it can be costly to the team. That's why fagggot did the right thing by sending on 1 despite being annoyed about the force send/disagreeing with the call.
Since you took the time to answer everything, I should also add the following. Obviously, i really was the first to throw an insult. It was triggered by the n-th game in a row, where instead of having fun playing, i have to deal with other players. I think I will get used to it soon, and accept that sometimes I can get banned for doing the right thing and it is better to lose the game.
What you believe is the right thing and what others may believe is the right thing is very different. That's why you vote.
Processing this since you said there is no need to unban you.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests