Jump to content


TIL that cheating is ok, as long as you're smart about it.

cheating clan cup

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

_xDsmote___FakeNews #21 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 09:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14860 battles
  • 1,013
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013

View PostTheCobraChicken, on Dec 16 2019 - 01:53, said:

Ok, then clearly, a chess tourney and a tanks tourney, are two very different things. OMG daki told a top clan to do stuff they were already doing, id better make a big deal on multiple forums and try to drag his name further through the mud because i dont like him, omg

 

I have not met anyone who has been using this scandal to try to slander daki or anything of the sort. Daki is a great caller with great strats; the questions regarding this scandal are threefold: (1) does this constitute a rules violation on the part of the involved clan, (2) did such participation in favor of the involved clan impact the competitive spirit of the playoffs, and (3) what ethical and moral implications, if any, were compromised by such participation on the part of the involved clan as it relates to the legitimacy of the playoffs?

 

No matter which side of the argument you fall on, none of those questions result in answers or motives that would directly attack daki as a person; they are questions about the clan involved and the resulting impact of the scandal on the playoffs. 



Avalon304 #22 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 09:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 24792 battles
  • 10,503
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Post_xDsmote___FakeNews, on Dec 16 2019 - 00:53, said:

 

I'll take the dictionary definition over anybody else's definition of the word "participate" any day of the week: "to take or have a part or share, as with others." Under your most narrow definition possible no rule was broken; however, quite literally any other interpretation holds that such participation occurred. 

 

The simple fact of the matter is that WarGaming's interpretation of their own rule does not match what the rule actually says. When you can have such a disconnect, that is emblematic of a problem, hence why so many people across so many discords, forum posts, and reddit threads have argued that these playoffs are flawed and illegitimate (and I say this as a member of a clan who finished in the Top 3). 

 

There will be very few people taking the results of these playoffs seriously, and this whole scandal is another contributor to the many factors that have led people to dismiss these playoffs altogether. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

 

Its a good thing the only definition that matters in this case is the one Wargaming is attributing to it then, huh?

 

Wargamings interpretation of their own rule does indeed match the way the rule is written: Participation requires actively playing in the match, and as Daki didnt do that, no rule was broken.

 

To answer "the" questions:

 

1. Wargaming has said there was no rule broken on the part of BULBA or Daki. Their word is the only one that matters in this question.

 

2. Having watched the game... no, BULBA was already up on HP when Daki offered his advice, and was already setting up to execute the same play. All Daki's advice offered was a slightly different way to execute the play. After that I didnt hear any advice Daki was offering... mostly because Wallhacks screams like a 13 year old... but it certainly didnt seem like he offered any.

 

3. Morals and ethics are very much a subjective thing. Personally, I dont think it was unethical, or immoral. Had it broken the rules, I would think otherwise.



_xDsmote___FakeNews #23 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 09:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14860 battles
  • 1,013
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 16 2019 - 02:13, said:

Its a good thing the only definition that matters in this case is the one Wargaming is attributing to it then, huh?

 

Wargamings interpretation of their own rule does indeed match the way the rule is written: Participation requires actively playing in the match, and as Daki didnt do that, no rule was broken.

 

It's interesting that you assume that WarGaming only provided one interpretation. In fact, WarGaming provided conflicting signals because there was also a second interpretation that a representative provided. Quote from direct PMs with a person involved with the WarGaming representative:

 

"They agreed with us that [Daki] participated in the event but that 'they couldn't enforce things outside of the game.'"

(There is a second set of quotations in there with a direct quote from the WarGaming representative to verify the credibility of it.)

 

Hence, one WarGaming representative took an extremely narrow definition of "participate" to claim that no violation occurred while another WarGaming representative asserted that such participation did occur but that WarGaming did not have the authority to enforce their own rule. In either case, the ramification is that WarGaming doesn't have accept any implications provided by the rules. Convenient, isn't it?

 

And just like that, the claim that WarGaming has a unified definition of "participate" goes up in smoke.



Avalon304 #24 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 10:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 24792 battles
  • 10,503
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Post_xDsmote___FakeNews, on Dec 16 2019 - 01:26, said:

 

It's interesting that you assume that WarGaming only provided one interpretation. In fact, WarGaming provided conflicting signals because there was also a second interpretation that a representative provided. Quote from direct PMs with a person involved with the WarGaming representative:

 

"They agreed with us that [Daki] participated in the event but that 'they couldn't enforce things outside of the game.'"

(There is a second set of quotations in there with a direct quote from the WarGaming representative to verify the credibility of it.)

 

Hence, one WarGaming representative took an extremely narrow definition of "participate" to claim that no violation occurred while another WarGaming representative asserted that such participation did occur but that WarGaming did not have the authority to enforce their own rule. In either case, the ramification is that WarGaming doesn't have accept any implications provided by the rules. Convenient, isn't it?

 

And just like that, the claim that WarGaming has a unified definition of "participate" goes up in smoke.

 

Who was the 2nd person? Was it the person responsible for running the clan cup? If not they dont matter. The person who was in charge of running the event is the only person who actually matters. I assume that would be BigBrother, but I dont particularly follow who runs CW stuff on the WG side, so I dont know.

 

Since it would appear that the first ruling came from the person in charge of running the event, its the final word, and the only one that matters.

 

Also yes... in general the authority setting up the rules doesnt actually have to accept any implications provided by said rules, that is pretty much the prerogative of the authority that created the rules.

 

And just so we're clear this is the rule for the Season 13 Playoffs that they could have potentially been in violation of:

 

Quote: Season 13 Playoffs MegaThread: Playoff Rules

 All players must be in the clan at the time of the battle in order to participate. If any player is not in the clan and enters the battle, the team will forfeit that round.

 

The rule clearly stipulates "enters the battle" as the delineation for participation. If Daki had entered the battle to play it, BULBA would have violated the rules, but he didnt, so they didnt.

 

 



_xDsmote___FakeNews #25 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 10:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14860 battles
  • 1,013
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 16 2019 - 03:06, said:

The rule clearly stipulates "enters the battle" as the delineation for participation. If Daki had entered the battle to play it, BULBA would have violated the rules, but he didnt, so they didnt.

 

Those are two entirely different rules. "If any player is not in the clan and enters the battle, the team will forfeit that round" is one rule. "All players must be in the clan at the time of the battle in order to participate" is an entirely different rule. That's why they are two entirely different sentences. For example, the following three rules that LargeForeignObject posted are all in one 'line' but are three different rules:

 

"Players must set replays to 'record all.' Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time. Players are required to submit those to Wargaming or risk forfeiture of the match and/or round."

 

Equivalently, (Rule 1) Players must set replays to "record all." (Rule 2) Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time. (Rule 3) Players are required to submit those to Wargaming or risk forfeiture of the match and/or round.

 

So, no, the rule does not stipulate "enters the battle" as the delineation for participation because that's an entirely different rule.

 

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 16 2019 - 03:06, said:

Who was the 2nd person? Was it the person responsible for running the clan cup? If not they dont matter. The person who was in charge of running the event is the only person who actually matters. I assume that would be BigBrother, but I dont particularly follow who runs CW stuff on the WG side, so I dont know.

 

Since it would appear that the first ruling came from the person in charge of running the event, its the final word, and the only one that matters.

 

(1) No one individual person was responsible for running the clan cup. The clan cup was ran by multiple WarGaming employees. There is no one person who was in charge of the event because it wasn't just one person.

 

(2) There was no "first ruling" because both interpretations were provided to OTTER officers at essentially identical times: the one that Spirit received was posted in the Reddit thread, and the one that a different OTTER officer received was sent in a PM to myself and I presume to other people. This other OTTER officer is an Executive Officer in their clan, and I do not mind if you really want to know their name (not that it matters, but I don't care either way).

 

(3) Therefore, the claim that "it would appear that the first ruling came from the person in charge of running the event [is] the final word and the only one that matters" is false by the facts provided in (1) and (2).

 

(4) The name of the other representative was not provided to me because I did not ask for their name, just like how the name of the representative who made the interpretation in the Reddit thread also was not provided. I would be happy to ask, though. I don't mind either way. I must further note that it is a double standard to demand the name of the WarGaming representative who provided the interpretation that implies a violation while simultaneously accepting from an also nameless WarGaming representative an interpretation that did not imply a violation. You cannot pick and choose. (Well, unless you'd like to be shut down by Hitchens's Razor, that is.)

 

Given the established and proven disagreements on the rationales provided for not taking any action against the involved clan, by definition a unified interpretation of the rules from authority is impossible. Hence an argument based on a unified authority has no foundation. Simple as that.



Casual_Boops #26 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 17:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 37347 battles
  • 1,705
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

View Post_xDsmote___FakeNews, on Dec 16 2019 - 02:01, said:

 

I have not met anyone who has been using this scandal to try to slander daki or anything of the sort. Daki is a great caller with great strats; the questions regarding this scandal are threefold: (1) does this constitute a rules violation on the part of the involved clan, (2) did such participation in favor of the involved clan impact the competitive spirit of the playoffs, and (3) what ethical and moral implications, if any, were compromised by such participation on the part of the involved clan as it relates to the legitimacy of the playoffs?

 

No matter which side of the argument you fall on, none of those questions result in answers or motives that would directly attack daki as a person; they are questions about the clan involved and the resulting impact of the scandal on the playoffs. 

 

I concur with the above. I don't have any issues with Daki as a person, but I view his involvement as a rules violation for the clan that accepted the help.



LookOut48469 #27 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 18:02

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014
Totally a cheater. PERIOD. The game was not meant to be used in this fashion or you would be allowed to have observers in tournaments like in training rooms. Circumventing the rules/game mechanics for an advantage. What a shame. 

TheCobraChicken #28 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 18:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 47236 battles
  • 4,104
  • [E50M] E50M
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

The sheer and utter tears are amazing. There is no case for cheating. Just another self righteous group, making noise



Exo_common_move #29 Posted Dec 16 2019 - 21:38

    Staff sergeant

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 14502 battles
  • 280
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    03-30-2013
just a friendly reminder that none of your opinions matter

Edited by Exo_Free_Real_Estate_xd, Dec 16 2019 - 21:38.


Avalon304 #30 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 13:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 24792 battles
  • 10,503
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Post_xDsmote___FakeNews, on Dec 16 2019 - 02:47, said:

 

Those are two entirely different rules. "If any player is not in the clan and enters the battle, the team will forfeit that round" is one rule. "All players must be in the clan at the time of the battle in order to participate" is an entirely different rule. That's why they are two entirely different sentences. For example, the following three rules that LargeForeignObject posted are all in one 'line' but are three different rules:

 

"Players must set replays to 'record all.' Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time. Players are required to submit those to Wargaming or risk forfeiture of the match and/or round."

 

Equivalently, (Rule 1) Players must set replays to "record all." (Rule 2) Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time. (Rule 3) Players are required to submit those to Wargaming or risk forfeiture of the match and/or round.

 

So, no, the rule does not stipulate "enters the battle" as the delineation for participation because that's an entirely different rule.

 

 

(1) No one individual person was responsible for running the clan cup. The clan cup was ran by multiple WarGaming employees. There is no one person who was in charge of the event because it wasn't just one person.

 

(2) There was no "first ruling" because both interpretations were provided to OTTER officers at essentially identical times: the one that Spirit received was posted in the Reddit thread, and the one that a different OTTER officer received was sent in a PM to myself and I presume to other people. This other OTTER officer is an Executive Officer in their clan, and I do not mind if you really want to know their name (not that it matters, but I don't care either way).

 

(3) Therefore, the claim that "it would appear that the first ruling came from the person in charge of running the event [is] the final word and the only one that matters" is false by the facts provided in (1) and (2).

 

(4) The name of the other representative was not provided to me because I did not ask for their name, just like how the name of the representative who made the interpretation in the Reddit thread also was not provided. I would be happy to ask, though. I don't mind either way. I must further note that it is a double standard to demand the name of the WarGaming representative who provided the interpretation that implies a violation while simultaneously accepting from an also nameless WarGaming representative an interpretation that did not imply a violation. You cannot pick and choose. (Well, unless you'd like to be shut down by Hitchens's Razor, that is.)

 

Given the established and proven disagreements on the rationales provided for not taking any action against the involved clan, by definition a unified interpretation of the rules from authority is impossible. Hence an argument based on a unified authority has no foundation. Simple as that.

 

No if they were entirely separate rules they would have been listed on separate lines... like every other rule. The second sentence is further clarification for the first, detaling what "participation" entails.

 

Just like the replays rule. The rule is "Replays must be set to all". Further clarification is provided that WG reserves the right to request replays or logs and that players must submit them if asked or risk forfeit. Those are not 3 separate rules. "Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time." is not a rule... its a stipulation to a rule. So yes, the participation rule has a stipulation attached to it that defines "participation" as entering the battle.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense... there is almost certainly one person in charge of the overall event, who then has several other people assist in running said event. Again I assume this is BigBrother (as he is WGs Competitive Gaming Manager), but it could easily be another employee whos name I do not know. I suppose WG could be running the event by committee... but I doubt it, as it makes far more sense to have one perosn be incharge of everything, with several other people he or she can delegate to. And yes: I would like the know the names of both of the employees who gave those responses.

 

You provided no facts, just assumptions. Assumptions that there was no first ruling and that there was no one person in charge of the event.



LookOut48469 #31 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 14:05

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014
Hey if you all want to Livestream with no video delay all your tournaments I would very much appreciate that. Since there's no problem with it I wouldn't mind knowing where you are going when we fight each other in tournament. I mean no way that would give me a advantage or anything. Who's to say this outside caller didn't find a member on the opposite team live streaming and use that to there advantage as well. I mean where does it stop.

LookOut48469 #32 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 14:11

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014

View PostExo_Free_Real_Estate_xd, on Dec 16 2019 - 21:38, said:

just a friendly reminder that none of your opinions matter

Just like yours.



Dr_Jerkov #33 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 16:31

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2070 battles
  • 269
  • [L-O-K] L-O-K
  • Member since:
    10-10-2018

View Post_xDsmote___FakeNews, on Dec 16 2019 - 03:47, said:

 

Those are two entirely different rules. "If any player is not in the clan and enters the battle, the team will forfeit that round" is one rule. "All players must be in the clan at the time of the battle in order to participate" is an entirely different rule. That's why they are two entirely different sentences. For example, the following three rules that LargeForeignObject posted are all in one 'line' but are three different rules:

 

"Players must set replays to 'record all.' Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time. Players are required to submit those to Wargaming or risk forfeiture of the match and/or round."

 

Equivalently, (Rule 1) Players must set replays to "record all." (Rule 2) Wargaming reserves to right to request replays and/or python logs at any time. (Rule 3) Players are required to submit those to Wargaming or risk forfeiture of the match and/or round.

 

So, no, the rule does not stipulate "enters the battle" as the delineation for participation because that's an entirely different rule.

 

 

(1) No one individual person was responsible for running the clan cup. The clan cup was ran by multiple WarGaming employees. There is no one person who was in charge of the event because it wasn't just one person.

 

(2) There was no "first ruling" because both interpretations were provided to OTTER officers at essentially identical times: the one that Spirit received was posted in the Reddit thread, and the one that a different OTTER officer received was sent in a PM to myself and I presume to other people. This other OTTER officer is an Executive Officer in their clan, and I do not mind if you really want to know their name (not that it matters, but I don't care either way).

 

(3) Therefore, the claim that "it would appear that the first ruling came from the person in charge of running the event [is] the final word and the only one that matters" is false by the facts provided in (1) and (2).

 

(4) The name of the other representative was not provided to me because I did not ask for their name, just like how the name of the representative who made the interpretation in the Reddit thread also was not provided. I would be happy to ask, though. I don't mind either way. I must further note that it is a double standard to demand the name of the WarGaming representative who provided the interpretation that implies a violation while simultaneously accepting from an also nameless WarGaming representative an interpretation that did not imply a violation. You cannot pick and choose. (Well, unless you'd like to be shut down by Hitchens's Razor, that is.)

 

Given the established and proven disagreements on the rationales provided for not taking any action against the involved clan, by definition a unified interpretation of the rules from authority is impossible. Hence an argument based on a unified authority has no foundation. Simple as that.

TL;DR

 

Need some pepper? Because you SALTY.



Dr_Jerkov #34 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 16:37

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2070 battles
  • 269
  • [L-O-K] L-O-K
  • Member since:
    10-10-2018
So if you have a friend or roommate that comes and looks over your shoulder during a game and gives you a tip, is that cheating? Because that is what this equates to. He more or less looked over the shoulder of one of the players and gave some tips. Next time any of you google help on a game or get ANY tips from anyone else outside of the game you are in, then you are just as guilty as what BULBA did. So all of you who are truly butthurt over this, get over yourself and grow the eff up. Quit trying to slander their name because you are jealous they are able to rearm and be top three at will. Because you are the ones that cream in your pants over the thought of being half as relevant as them.

Edited by Dr_Jerkov, Dec 17 2019 - 16:38.


LookOut48469 #35 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 16:55

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014

View PostDr_Jerkov, on Dec 17 2019 - 16:37, said:

So if you have a friend or roommate that comes and looks over your shoulder during a game and gives you a tip, is that cheating? Because that is what this equates to. He more or less looked over the shoulder of one of the players and gave some tips. Next time any of you google help on a game or get ANY tips from anyone else outside of the game you are in, then you are just as guilty as what BULBA did. So all of you who are truly butthurt over this, get over yourself and grow the eff up. Quit trying to slander their name because you are jealous they are able to rearm and be top three at will. Because you are the ones that cream in your pants over the thought of being half as relevant as them.

Yup totally cheating. Watching a video and learning and then playing is not the same thing as being told exactly what to do and when. If it's clear you can't let other people play your account why is it not clear you can't get outside help. If outside interaction was allowed during competition then you could have observers like training rooms. Idk seems pretty clear to me. The problem is you always have people trying to get a edge because for whatever reason, usually just lack the ability, they can't compete at the level others are on so they get help. It's wrong and pathetic. And no my man noone in any competition will tell me what to do I either win or lose ON MY OWN. If they wanted his help to call the match he needed to be on the team and in the game period. 

 

So says my 2 Penney's


Edited by LookOut48469, Dec 17 2019 - 17:05.


_Kradok_ #36 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 17:09

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 34276 battles
  • 2,759
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

Was it considered a Game Violation?  No.

 

Was it "morally wrong"?  Who cares, that's a subjective argument that doesn't matter.  See the above.

 

 



LookOut48469 #37 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 17:47

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014

Opps we are screwed now

2.20. Discussion of decisions or sanctions made by Game Masters or Administration in all game chats and channels is prohibited.



LookOut48469 #38 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 18:07

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014
Just briefly read the Eula , game rules, privacy policy and didn't see anything resembling using live streaming, so yes it was allowed. Morally it's not even a question to me,but some don't have souls I guess.

LookOut48469 #39 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 18:14

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014

View PostLookOut48469, on Dec 17 2019 - 17:47, said:

Opps we are screwed now

2.20. Discussion of decisions or sanctions made by Game Masters or Administration in all game chats and channels is prohibited.

O nvm. Guess this isn't chat or channel it's a forum



LookOut48469 #40 Posted Dec 17 2019 - 18:23

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47493 battles
  • 245
  • [_DOA_] _DOA_
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014
It is really surprising to me though that with all that language in the Eula, game rules, and privacy policy there is only a very small section (4) that deals with game rules. Surprising short and not very thorough.





Also tagged with cheating, clan cup

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users