Introducing: Official Ladder Administration Thread

[soccernamlak]

I figured this would have been the next logical step after our Mumble chat last night. Since I have the habit of typing out decrees and am the banning admin, I'll go ahead and tackle this one.

Let's first start with the facts you present:

Originally Posted by elixirwithani

FACTS:

3) PLAYER elixir observed the following:

a. ADMIN sunshineduck [as &ssd&] in server LADDER #3;
and
b. PLAYER Pancakes! [as &cakes!&] in server LADDER #3;
and
c. ADMIN &ssd& and PLAYER &cakes& no longer using their "fun" accounts;
and
d. ADMIN &DN& is also in match (c);
and
e. PLAYER elixir states, during the match: "[18:30] elixir: SSD CAN I START USING MY REAL ACCOUNT TOO";
and
f. PLAYERS and ADMIN elixir, &cakes!&, and &ssd& then join teams in ball_ladderlobby;
and
g. TWO ( [1] [2] ) matches are played without incident by PLAYER elixir, while ADMINS &ssd& and &DN& are present both in-server and in-game;

PLAYERS elixir and &cakes& and ADMIN &ssd& were subsequently banned, hours later, by a different admin for a violation of Rule 11.

Chat Log

There are a few things to note here, one that actually strengthens cakes' defense actually:

1) PLAYER Pancakes! actually asked DN if this were allowed and would she get banned for it. DN mis-spoke and told her incorrectly that while her smurf account would be banned, her normal account would be fine. Otherwise, I suspect she wouldn't have played.

Because of this, I will be speaking later tonight with Mikesol and DN regarding Cakes' ban, as she DIRECTLY received information by an admin that goes against our rules, and due to DN's error, has a pretty much rock-solid case for having her ban removed in my opinion.

This information was discovered post-ban, as a reference.

2) PLAYER elixir did not receive direct information one way or another that playing with a normal account after using smurf accounts for the first 1/3 of the season was either okay or not allowed by either admin. As evident by the chat logs, DN nor SSD (two ladder admins), or any other admin possibly present at the time, gave elixir any explicit response to his question.

As such, elixir assumed that because an ADMIN sitting was apparently doing nothing and that an ADMIN was playing under these rule violations that therefore him, elixir, playing was allowed.

This is an incorrect assumption. While DN might have not been completely AFK, there are times a spectating player or Admin is busy with other stuff. While in spectate mode, we are not required as admins to devote 100% of our attention and time to watching the game and players. DN even admitted on chat he was doing other stuff at the time. Combine this with his mis-speak with cakes earlier, there would have been no reason for him to act on this ban-worthy violation of the rules.

Regarding SSD, this is a lot easier and clearer to see: Just because an admin is doing something doesn't mean it is right, or doesn't mean that it doesn't violate the rules. Despite what some people may think, admins are not above the rules. We are the police officers and justice department rolled into one for ladder: enforcer of rules and punishers of crimes committed. But we are still subject to bans like anyone else.

Now that we have added more facts to your, ssd's, and cakes' case, let's look at your defense:

DEFENSES:

1) Rule 11 is being misapplied in this case; the facts do not constitute a violation of Rule 11

a. History of Rule 11:

Rule 11 was created with the purpose of preventing players from creating "smurf" accounts. This was a result of Season 1 "smurfing" - i.e. using a second account on the Altitude Ladder at the same time ("at the same time" meaning just that - the two accounts overlapped each other in time of use, such that one was used, then the second, then the first again, over any duration) as your main account.

As I specifically told you last night, it doesn't matter what the history of the rule is, only how the rule is written and the interpretations that can come about from it.

Let me provide two-counter examples of how rules differ from application:

1) Spec Chat rule. As I've been told many times by players who have been banned for spec chat, the original reason for this rule was to prevent a constant spam of text from players mid-game, breaking concentration of the players. Essentially, people trying to have full-blown conversations in all-chat.

Thus, the spec chat rule was created.

HOWEVER, just like any good rule, it never specified how much text was required before you violated this rule. It just said "Spectators not using team-chat after being asked to by a player." That's it. So yes, technically, saying anything after spec-chat is called can get you banned.

Like any rule, it is up to admin's interpretation and discretion. Some are pretty harsh on this rule, others give a warning then kick if it's full sentences after that. Pretty much every admin won't ban for a "ns" or "gg" after a goal is scored. However, these are all violations of the rule the way it is written; we as admins choose not to ban or provide warnings initially for some violations of this rule. Which again, as admins, we have full rights to do. But, people still get banned for a line of chat after spec chat was called. And while this is against the history of the rule, based on how the rule is written, it applies fully and the admin is at 0-fault here.

2) The United States Constitution. As I tried to explain yesterday, the founding fathers were relatively smart guys. The Bill of Rights states some things very clearly (Freedom of Speech, for example) and others a bit more hazy (a well-regulated militia). The reason for this vagueness is they understood that as time passed, society will change. Viewpoints shift, definitions are created and destroyed, and societal interactions can vary across the spectrum. You want to ensure, then, that a document set for all of history allows for these changes.

The 2nd Amendment, for example, is probably the most debated by the public, scholars, and justices alike. The term "well-regulated militia" is constantly up to scrutiny.

Historically speaking, the reason for this law was to ensure that the public person could have a weapon in their house to defend against enemy countries or takeovers. As any student can recall, it's difficult to start your country or defend from the British if they're taking away all of your guns.

But, it presents alternative cases as well. The people can now defend or even attack their own government, should they need to as a reform movement.

But let's look at today. The United States has arguably the most powerful militia ever created. We can attack any country with a push of the button, and have land trips there within 36 hours. So, does the public still need fully-automatic weapons in their house? Do we need guns outside of sport or fun?

While I won't go into this debate in full, suffice to say this amendment, amongst others, has been constantly evaluated and contested at the Supreme Court.

My point in all of this is that the interpretation of the rule is based on the current Supreme Court Justices which is influenced by the presidential administration that put them there along with societal influences. Which is the way it should be! It allows for flexibility as the country changes.


To bring this back to Ladder: The rules are intentionally left with wiggle room so that as the game changes and ladder administrations change, each admin or set of admins can oversee ladder as they see fit.

Thus, as we progress from Season 1 to Season 6, one must expect that players change, admins change, and the game changes. It is without question, then, that the interpretation to the rules will change as well.

Which brings me back to the central point of all of this:

If the admins wanted the rule to be enforced a specific way, then they should have stated it in the rules at the time of creation. If they leave it up to "tradition" or alternative viewpoints, then they must anticipate and expect that tradition will change and alternative viewpoints will be employed. If that's not the intent, then the rules need to be changed.

Moving on....

[soccernamlak]

b. Why Rule 11 does not apply

It is abundantly clear, to any reasonable person, that the purpose, intent, and meaning of Rule 11 is unambiguous on its face. Rule 11 was designed to prevent players from using a second account at the same time as their main account.

From the evidence presented in (a) "Defenses," the facts listed above regarding the nature of the accounts for PLAYERS elixir and &cakes!& and ADMIN &ssd& cannot meet the definition of "smurfing," as in Rule 11, and PLAYERS elixir and &cakes!& and ADMIN &ssd& cannot be deemed to have been "Playing on multiple accounts," as their accounts were used not at the same time, but instead were used conterminously.

The "main" accounts of PLAYERS elixir and &cakes!& and ADMIN &ssd& were NEVER, at ANY POINT, used at the same time as their "fun" accounts. As such, under all evidence and in spite of all pretense, they cannot have violated Rule 11 as written.

I should mention that your first sentence is, sadly, a fallacy, as you are attempting to paint the image that anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint is unreasonable, which is far from the case. The fact that you have made this error in your first sentence does not bode well for the rest of your argument, but I digress.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not interested in the historical facts behind the rules, but only how they are written and need to be applied to the game of today. So while you might claim it is unambiguous, I can either claim the same from a different viewpoint (as I will go into later) or that it is purposely ambiguous, as explained earlier with past US Laws and Ladder Rules.

Unfortunately, where your argument now starts to falter quite badly is your attempt to remove the players from the words in the rule.

1) Smurfing is by definition using an account that is at a lower skill level than your current player is either ranked or known for whatever reason you deem necessary. This could be to helping out a lower-ranked friend level up faster, to gaming the system, to playing badly with alternative accounts when there are people on you just don't like.

Fact: Your alternate accounts were at a lower skill level than your normal accounts.

Fact: You were playing with these alternate accounts as a way to play certain perksets that are frowned upon for fun.

Fact: You three were smurfing by the majority of the definitions that people apply to the word "smurf."

2) "Playing at the same time" is one of those where it is open to interpretation. AS OF NOW, it is the common interpretation by a few of the admins that "Playing at the same time" constitutes using more than 1 account during the same ladder season in the same game mode. Whether you play one and then the other, switch up between the two, or even only play 1 single game with your alternate account, it doesn't matter: it fits the definition currently employed of "Playing at the same time."

Again, what this meant historically is interesting but not a defense for your case, as again the game, players, and admins change. Therefore the rule interpretations will change as well over time. IF the rule was to exclude one than the other, it need to have been stated.

Fact: By my definition and other admins, you, SSD, and Cakes violated this rule as you used two accounts in ladder in the same game mode in the same season.

Fact: Regardless if you play one account then the other, switching between the two, or even one game in a second account, you are impacting the ladder ratings. The whole point of banning smurfs is to prevent unnecessary or abuse of alteration of the ladder ratings. This was even evident clearly in your past threads that you cite.

3) Your final argument here that the accounts:

"NEVER, at ANY POINT, used at the same time as their "fun" accounts. As such, under all evidence and in spite of all pretense, they cannot have violated Rule 11 as written."

is therefore, incorrect based on my and other admin's current implementation of the rule. You used these accounts at the same time during the same season, and therefore you have violated Rule 11.

Moving on to your precedent:

2) Precedent

As a search through both public and private archives will attest to, no player has been banned for (1) ceasing, absolutely, the use of one account, on ladder, with the knowledge and consent of an admin, and (2) beginning use of a different account, on ladder, with the knowledge and consent of an admin, given that (3) the accounts were not used at the same time on ladder previously.

Again, as SSD mentioned earlier to me on Mumble, historically that may have been the case, but the rule is not written to allow that loophole.

Further, again, you are still impacting the ladder ratings, for better or worse, which is something we try to avoid as admins.

And again, this is not the current interpretation of the rule by multiple admins, which as been documented as such in private archives.

So, if we're keeping this to case law, you are presenting historical cases, which would be fine, except newer cases and "supreme admin" decisions have shown a different interpretation that was employed and is still in use. Therefore, your bringing up of historical interpretations only serves to demonstrate how things have changed, not as a viable defense mechanism for your ban.

As both ADMINS &DN& and &ssd& were (1) in the server, and (2) aware of the existence of the "fun" accounts of PLAYERS elixir and &cakes!& and ADMIN &ssd&, it must be inferred that, at a bare minimum, implied consent was given as to the permanent, absolute switch from "fun" accounts to "main" accounts.

As I stated earlier, you cannot imply anything. Admins can break rules. Admins can not really be paying attention to the game or chat as spectators. You were never given an explicit response to your question. Your mistake was your assumption that it was okay and not against the rules, which is never the right thing to do.

There exists no "formal" process or paperwork for switching accounts. As such, the implied consent of TWO admins exists as ample and sufficient evidence that the account change was allowed.

Again, incorrect. There is no formal process now except don't play with two accounts in same game mode during same season. Pretty simple. In addition, implied consent IS NOT CONSENT. There are many real world examples of such; I suggest you look them up.

There allegedly exists precedent in the admin forums, for PLAYER aya switching accounts midseason, with the knowledge and consent of admins, without repercussion.

Precedent, or historical cases, are fine if there isn't newer cases that overturn these thoughts. Except, in this case, there are. Therefore your historical cases have no real weight at the ban in hand.

In my conclusion, I'd like to re-display Rule 11 for you:

Rule 11) Playing on multiple accounts (i.e. smurfing). Alternate accounts are subject to permabanning (the main account receives a regular ban).

Were you playing on multiple accounts i.e. smurfing?

Yes. You played on two accounts during the same season in the same game mode. That is my and other admins current interpretation of the rule. What it meant historically is only to demonstrate a shift of admin thought over time, nothing more at this point.

Basically, this isn't a brand new interpretation, but has been applied for a while now.

Because you violated this rule, your alternate accounts were permabanned and your primary account receives a regular ban.


As I tell people many times, the rules really are quite simple. Based on the direct reading of the rule, you are subject to a ban. Any and all considerations, interpretations, leniencies, historical cases, etc. are only to showcase how admin discretion can be employed and how it shifted over time. But the rule quite simply states that playing on multiple accounts in ladder is ban worthy.

You played on two accounts in ladder. You violated this rule. You receive bans on both accounts.

[sunshineduck]

does the fact that elixir and i also received direct information from an admin (myself) that switching accounts would be fine not have any relevance?

obviously i did not intentionally break a ladder rule because i love getting banned, despite my calm nonchalance about the whole scenario in the previous night's mumble conversation on the subject. obviously i am not going to post the bunker logs, but i produced several pieces of evidence supporting my claim that banning for switching accounts in a season has a precedent of not being banned, enforced by several admins (myself, DN, nobo, woken included) and is therefore the reason why i thought it was acceptable (and told cakes and elixir so when they asked).

i do not think being an admin gives me certain immunity against being banned, but i do believe that my previous history as an admin should lend credibility to what i am saying. based on previous handling of this exact type of situation in the past, none of the 3 people banned for smurfing would have bans on anything but their smurfs.

like i said in mumble, if you are fine with banning three people for a technicality, that is your prerogative and i can't really do anything to change your mind. the rules are written and you are correct, it doesn't allow that loophole, but that is why we have real people to make subjective decisions as admins and not robots.

ed;

i just read your second post - the "current interpretation of the rule by multiple admins, which as been documented as such in private archives" i already explained to you yesterday. when people came to me/DN/mike before smurfing to ask if changing accounts was ok, the admin in question would ban the old account and allow the changing without any punishment on the "new" account. the most recent example of this is may 19th, 2012 when DN permabanned a player's smurf because they wanted to play on their real account. according to what was written, this was okayed by mikesol. since then, there have been three bans for smurfing in direct violation of the rules with no previous clearing with an admin. obviously if the situation of someone wanting to clear an account change with an admin ahead of time does not arise, there cannot be a more recent historical precedence.

the only admins that have come forward saying that the rules are currently interpreted differently are those that (to my knowledge, i don't remember exactly when aki was added) were added as ladder admins after the most recent case of someone asking before switching accounts happened (DN in may). therefore ignorance of previous dealings with these exact proceedings is obviously not something to be upset about, but there are several admins with both seniority and actual experience with this exact same situation (myself, woken, nobo, mike et al) that have previously banned exactly like i have claimed - permabanning the smurf, leaving the main account intact. that is why i switched accounts without sweating a ban, and told cakes and elixir that they would also be fine - simply because it's not something that has been banned for in the past. obviously i did not want the three of us to be banned, so the reasonable conclusion should probably be that i'm being honest and that a revision of how admins deal with this situation can be acknowledged if you deem it necessary. i'm not vehemently opposed to banning for it as you are correct, it does affect the ratings of others in a possibly negative fashion, but i do not believe that the three people banned yesterday should remain banned due to a technicality.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

[Kuja900]

That wall of text is one of the saddest things ive ever read on these forums, did you really just go to the constitution lolllllllllllllllllllll. It's just a long justification for being a spiteful anti fun windbag. The whole reason that rule was invented was cause me and balln went dumb bombs on are smurfs for a few games and people got mad even though we did really well. The player pool is so small banning people over things this trivial is just so toxic.

ps- nobody is going to fully read that post you need shorter and more concise points/arguments

[elixirwithani]

The proof is in the bunker.

If there is evidence in the bunker that this has been done before, there is no rational reason to disallow it now.

SSD and I have provided evidence and historical precedent to support our claim. There has been no countervailing evidence.

If you want to be right for the sake of being right, I guess there's nothing I can do about that. You are, after all, watching all the doors, and holding all the keys.

You made Rule 11 what you want it to be after we changed accounts. By ANY standard of justice, you cannot apply your new definition to something that happened in the past. Ex post facto.

Don't cite the Constitution and then ignore clearly cited precedent - the foundation of English Common Law and modern American Law. Stare decisis. Let the decision stand.

[shrode]

I don't care what happens to these guys, as they did whatever they did knowing this precedence, but no smurfing means no using another account on ladder EVER. It isn't about having two accounts on at once... it's about misrepresenting your rating at the sake of imbalancing games for no reason.

What should happen is these guys get some kind of slap on the wrist and a notice be added to the rules clarifying the purpose of rule 11 above and giving notice that this precedence no longer holds going forward and people will be banned.

[Fartface]

Not that I have any place in this (or that I closely read these essays) but if your whole "argument" rests on the case that you were just permanently switching from the smurfs to your normal accounts (not switching back and forth, etc.), why do you care even a little bit that your smurf accounts got banned? I got banned once on both accounts for playing on a smurf account, why should anyone get special privileges just because they argue that the rule is "ambiguous"?

[elixirwithani]

Originally Posted by Fartface

Not that I have any place in this (or that I closely read these essays) but if your whole "argument" rests on the case that you were just permanently switching from the smurfs to your normal accounts (not switching back and forth, etc.), why do you care even a little bit that your smurf accounts got banned? I got banned once on both accounts for playing on a smurf account, why should anyone get special privileges just because they argue that the rule is "ambiguous"?

No, you misunderstand. We were expecting our other accounts to be permabanned. That was understood. We were not expecting a third admin, after the fact, to randomly swoop in and ban our main accounts, when in the past that has not happened (see: all the cases SSD mentions in the bunker).

What you did was this, which has always been punished:




What we did was this, which has never been punished:

[Fartface]

Ah ok. Well at the very least, disregarding whether or not the rule is ambiguous, it seems logical that starting new accounts a month into the season at 1500 will detract from the playing experience until you catch up. If it doesn't violate rule 11 it seems to me the only legitimate way to violate rule 12. You coulda just changed the usernames

[malkin]

Originally Posted by Fartface

You coulda just changed the usernames

Yes but that would be too logical.

[elixirwithani]

Originally Posted by Fartface

Ah ok. Well at the very least, disregarding whether or not the rule is ambiguous, it seems logical that starting new accounts a month into the season at 1500 will detract from the playing experience until you catch up. If it doesn't violate rule 11 it seems to me the only legitimate way to violate rule 12. You coulda just changed the usernames

It clearly doesn't violate any rules, since people have done it with admin consent in the past. Again, see: post by ssd stating this sort of thing has happened many times, documented in the bunker.

[sunshineduck]

just changing the names would have resulted in an even bigger difference in terms of rating, and the main reason i wanted to change accounts back was the fact that i had to change steam accounts every time i wanted to smurf, which led to me just not playing period

[leggomyeggo]

second picture made me lol. yes, i am a child.

[AzzedariuSuiradezza]

So it's cool to circumvent bans?

[darknietzsche]

People not directly related to the ban, (ssd, cakes, elixir, and the admins involved), while your input may be hysterical and sometimes informing, are generally not required and actually should not be posted in this thread. I ask you to refrain from posting anything that is not intelligently, respectful, and relevant to the case in hand.

[Slender]

What SSD said in his big ass post is just the exact same situation that happened with Carbon!. His main account got banned for I don't know what, then he made a new account, a "smurf" and started playing in ladder. Everyone knew about it. By the time, two of his accounts had stats recorded already on ladder but he still kept playing with his smurf and everyone still knowing about it. I remember then, he asked Mike to make a "trade" and unban his main account and ban his smurf one and play on his main. I don't see why you can't seem to apply this to ssd and the others?

[elixirwithani]

Originally Posted by SlenderMan

What SSD said in his big ass post is just the exact same situation that happened with Carbon!. His main account got banned for I don't know what, then he made a new account, a "smurf" and started playing in ladder. Everyone knew about it. By the time, two of his accounts had stats recorded already on ladder but he still kept playing with his smurf and everyone still knowing about it. I remember then, he asked Mike to make a "trade" and unban his main account and ban his smurf one and play on his main. I don't see why you can't seem to apply this to ssd and the others?

His main account was banned and he circumvented the ban by playing on a new account...

Not similar.

[Slender]

Originally Posted by elixirwithani

His main account was banned and he circumvented the ban by playing on a new account...

Not similar.

I tried. ;/

[sunshineduck]

slender's post was poorly worded, but yes, that did happen and is one of the precedents i had forgotten about

the actual order events was (iirc)

1. carbon's main gets banned
2. carbon's main is unbanned
3. carbon decides he wants to smurf instead of continuing to play on his main
4. carbon plays on his smurf
5. ssd makes fun of carbon a lot, permabans the main account so he can't go back to it
6. carbon has decided he has had enough of smurfing and requests that he be allowed to switch back to his main
7. mikesol is the greek god of generosity and allows it
8. mikesol bans carbon's smurf, unbans carbon's main
9. cabron ditches cleveland for the sunny beaches of miami

correct me if i'm wrong

[elixirwithani]

Originally Posted by SlenderMan

I tried. ;/

Yea <3

There's really nothing to debate here, that's the silly part.

There are multiple instances, recorded, in the admin bunker, wherein one account was put into disuse, with the knowledge and consent of admins, and a second account was activated, free of repercussions.

That is exactly what was done here.

Any extraneous commentary is irrelevant. The situation boils down to the paragraph above.

The resulting issue is, and can only be: in Altitude Ladder, with admin knowledge and consent, have players been allowed to permanently cease use of one account, and begin use of a second account, free of repercussions to the second account?

If the answer to that question is yes, the bans must be overturned.

[Slender]

Does XX2 and his lambo account have any meaning in this discussion?

[elixirwithani]

Ah, I misunderstood slender's post.

[sunshineduck]

nah, xx2 only started playing on lambo in between seasons and hasn't played a game on his previous account since he started lambo

[mikesol]

The Carbon situation was different:

Post from bunker where ssd bans carbon:
8b125b1d-312f-467f-bc5e-475dc7b67b8c – carbon – smurf acct
4488561d-6759-4936-95ef-13918c98cd55 – clinically insane – 7 day, playing on a smurf

can swap depending on which account he prefers

------

I performed the swap from clinically insane to carbon where clinically insane was perma'd and carbon was banned for 7 days. I did not remove his ban or give him less time. We knew both accounts were his so his ban counter would remain the same. I'm not sure I see how that is the same as this...

---
With that being said - DN, Aki, Soccer, and I will talk later this evening about the new information and decide how to proceed.

[sunshineduck]

oh i remembered so terribly wrong

[ufo]

Originally Posted by Kuja900

me and balln went dumb bombs on are smurfs

on..are..smurfs

Originally Posted by Kuja900

one of the saddest things ive ever read on these forums

[Kuja900]

Originally Posted by ufo

on..are..smurfs

Never miss a chance to poke a needle huh fo

[Ingbo]

Originally Posted by Kuja900

Never miss a chance to poke a needle huh fo

how about u stop sounding like a retard and say "our" instead like ive told u to for the last 2 years rofl.

[VAN1SH1NG]

I'd certainly much rather see the players that are always and purposely retards that ruin ladder banned. This includes the few that always use rev and those who randa only and refuse to ever switch even if the team has 3+ randas.

Ladder rankings mean very little when at least 1/3 of the games will be decided by these idiots basically sabotaging their teams and not the performance of the other 4-5 players on each team.

Sure those who choose to be idiots temporarily or on a separate account are deserving of a ban, but it makes little sense to ban them when others are allowed to be idiots all the time.

[soccernamlak]

I'm going to forgo responding to the posts above, mostly because the points brought up I've already hashed out before. Then the others add 0 to the conversation.

Let me just provide an update, then, based on the chats Aki, Mike, DN, and I have had over the past 12 hours:

1) We all agree that Cakes should be unbanned. Regardless of how the rule was interpreted in the past, last night, or future, Cakes specifically asked DN if she was allowed to do something, and he gave her approval to do so. If it comes down to the fact that DN mis-spoke, that's his fault; the player should not be punished for something an admin genuinely said was okay to do.

2) We are still discussing elixir's and SSD's bans, but the general consensus is that SSD's ban will, at minimum, be significantly reduced.

3) Going back to the historical cases, which is where some of elixir's arguments fall short, is a point that Mikesol specifically made regarding how this was handled in the past (emphasis mine):

* There are a few documented cases in the bunker where SSD's bans smurfs and allows people to switch accounts midseason when they've asked an admin about it (specifically him, woken, or dn). DN has also done this as well.

* None of the other admins have done anything like this -but- nobody had ever said anything against that, either.

DN further went on to say that "the only reason I had not banned like this...when I had to do it my first time, I felt that the case was iffy...since he basically asked very nicely, and when I asked SSD and saw that it had been done before I felt it was fine."


What this boils down to, then, is certain admins banning historically one way and other admins another way.

4) That being said, while we all acknowledge that rule application and ban lengths are admin's discretion, there can be areas where an admin consensus needs to come about. For instance, saying "ns" after spec chat has been called won't get you banned.

This is one of those areas where there should be a general consensus, regardless of whichever way it ends up being.

So, as of last night, we are still discussing ban lengths. We are discussing the application of Rule 11. If we decide to allow accounts to be switched mid-way through a season, there will be a private (so a player can smurf w/o being known by others)) but more admin-involved process in the switch. In addition, I have proposed that if this is something that we allow, that Rule 11 be updated to include this "loophole," if you will, because as it stands, all three players deserved a ban on both accounts as the way the Rule is written.

[classicallad]

why not just add a cap to how many of each plane can be picked per team, like; 2 randa 3 explo 1 bip 4 loops 3 bomber.

[classicallad]

Originally Posted by elixirwithani

No, you misunderstand. We were expecting our other accounts to be permabanned. That was understood. We were not expecting a third admin, after the fact, to randomly swoop in and ban our main accounts, when in the past that has not happened (see: all the cases SSD mentions in the bunker).

What you did was this, which has always been punished:




What we did was this, which has never been punished:

requesting ban on elixir for posting pictures of boobies on the ladder thread.

[Ingbo]

and a dick

[darknietzsche]

Originally Posted by darknietzsche

People not directly related to the ban, (ssd, cakes, elixir, and the admins involved), while your input may be hysterical and sometimes informing, are generally not required and actually should not be posted in this thread. I ask you to refrain from posting anything that is not intelligently, respectful, and relevant to the case in hand.

Thank You!

[classicallad]

The universe is all about balance. I posted something useful but needed an un-useful post to complete the scales.

[CCN]

It would surprise me substantially that cakes/elixer/ssd would not chat if they were all going to smurf together. Information sharing, i.e. that SSD/DN, 2 admins, okay'd it seems like the first thing that would be shared.

[JDR]

Originally Posted by elixirwithani

The resulting issue is, and can only be: in Altitude Ladder, with admin knowledge and consent, have players been allowed to permanently cease use of one account, and begin use of a second account, free of repercussions to the second account?

If the answer to that question is yes, the bans must be overturned.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

[drunkguava]

Originally Posted by soccernamlak

4) That being said, while we all acknowledge that rule application and ban lengths are admin's discretion, there can be areas where an admin consensus needs to come about. For instance, saying "ns" after spec chat has been called won't get you banned.

This is one of those areas where there should be a general consensus, regardless of whichever way it ends up being.

So, as of last night, we are still discussing ban lengths. We are discussing the application of Rule 11. If we decide to allow accounts to be switched mid-way through a season, there will be a private (so a player can smurf w/o being known by others)) but more admin-involved process in the switch. In addition, I have proposed that if this is something that we allow, that Rule 11 be updated to include this "loophole," if you will, because as it stands, all three players deserved a ban on both accounts as the way the Rule is written.

Hi, I'd like to add my 2c as an admin, but as I'm not a part of this situation and am late to the party, feel free to ignore it. I also didn't read everything because I don't have the time/desire.

There is clearly confusion and controversy about rule 11, and because of that alone, I think the bans should be temporary. On the order of weeks even, not months. Instead of being punitive, let's use this as an opportunity to fix that rule and maybe improve ladder a bit (****ing hippie). There might actually be a role for multiple accounts in ladder.

Pros:

• We provide a few extra bucks to the devs
• It would encourage people to try new setups on ladder
• Prevent imbalance because of different skill levels with different planes
• (say you primarily play loopy, but you feel like whaling really badly. Go play whale on your whale account, so that your worse whale skills don't hurt your balanced loopy account)

Cons:

• People will half-ass their secondary account because they don't care about its rating, reducing ladder competition quality
• The inevitable biplane or reverse or domber accounts would be obnoxious because there's less incentive to play a good plane on a secondary account
• Fewer games on either account will reduce the balance of both
• More work for ladmins because you'd need enforcement of new rules for multiple accounts
• What if you switch planes depending on your team setup anyway?
• If your team really needs a loopy, but you're on your secondary whale account can you switch to loopy?

I'm sure there are more pros/cons for either side.

If you decide to allow multiples, I'd cap it at 2 per person, and they'd have to be registered on the forum to help the admins. One thread where people post both vapor IDs and their most common username and setup for each. Anything extraneous is deleted.

However, I'm in favor of just banning multiples outright (even though I'd love a biplane account). Too many complications, and who is going to be policing all these accounts anyway?

[Aki1024]

Originally Posted by drunkguava

• If your team really needs a loopy, but you're on your secondary whale account can you switch to loopy?

The super version of this has the parser take a look at planes among all players and finds a reasonable setup(tm) to place them out based on rating per that one plane. It also disallows players from changing planes during the game muhahahaha.

Or within ladder there is a setting to call yourself a one plane per game account or a normal ladder as we know it today. If you are a single plane per game account, ladder gives you 5 ratings for the purposes of team balance (display on site is an entirely different story of dev). If you are a normal account, balancer uses a single rating for you. Play greater then 10% of a game as a different plane (as a single plane per account player) and get parser-banned at the end of the game for increasing amounts of time.

/custom setting acounttype <onegameoneplane|normal>

(This will totally happen once the Singularity hits)

[mikesol]

Guava - as a heads up - one of the bans was completely removed - one was reduced to 3 days - and the other was left at 3 days.