|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 17:12:15 GMT
If this is true there's been some other thing going on as well: "Our taxi had arrived so I ordered our last player to forfeit his game and start packing models." (http://www.courageofcaspia.com/2017/10/norway-hugin-captains-story.html) EDIT: Lost the quote there; pangurban mentioned that captains are only allowed to tell the state of another game to a player, noting else.
Well, I can say I never followed this rule to the letter and never saw it followed. You won't have people that know each other side-by-side and not get comments now and then. Anything from teasing to offer of a drink I have said and heard.
By the way, before I forget... Props to the WTC organization for the flexibility in arranging pairings and fixing tables to allow a team with terrible travelling arrangements to have as good an experience as possible. "No good deed goes unpunished" springs to mind
I doubt this rule was or should be enforced to the letter, but for the record: Jarle himself states in his last blog post that he sent away players other than those whose game it was because they were arguing about the situation. Regardless of anything else, that at least shows that a) tempers might have been running a little high and b) there was outside player involvement that probably wasn’t acceptable even just by the spirit of the rule, never mind the letter.
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 18:11:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 11, 2017 18:11:39 GMT
Well, I can say I never followed this rule to the letter and never saw it followed. You won't have people that know each other side-by-side and not get comments now and then. Anything from teasing to offer of a drink I have said and heard.
By the way, before I forget... Props to the WTC organization for the flexibility in arranging pairings and fixing tables to allow a team with terrible travelling arrangements to have as good an experience as possible. "No good deed goes unpunished" springs to mind
I doubt this rule was or should be enforced to the letter, but for the record: Jarle himself states in his last blog post that he sent away players other than those whose game it was because they were arguing about the situation. Regardless of anything else, that at least shows that a) tempers might have been running a little high and b) there was outside player involvement that probably wasn’t acceptable even just by the spirit of the rule, never mind the letter. Man, things have been busy since last night! Nice noticing that Jarle sent people away. I saw that too and I wondered if something else was going on. Still, the 15 minute delay to get the judge there seems highly problematic to me.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 18:55:41 GMT
I doubt this rule was or should be enforced to the letter, but for the record: Jarle himself states in his last blog post that he sent away players other than those whose game it was because they were arguing about the situation. Regardless of anything else, that at least shows that a) tempers might have been running a little high and b) there was outside player involvement that probably wasn’t acceptable even just by the spirit of the rule, never mind the letter. Man, things have been busy since last night! Nice noticing that Jarle sent people away. I saw that too and I wondered if something else was going on. Still, the 15 minute delay to get the judge there seems highly problematic to me. The head judge rather than the floor judge, during the last round, while not playing the finals? It’s a long time, sure, but not entirely surprising to me.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 11, 2017 19:50:26 GMT
Looking at what the committees write on their facebook case, I think they are clearly saying that France's capitain lied on not having asked for the escalation.
The French team silence on this is deafening. They are a third part, that siding with either Norway's or WTC narration would make it clear who is saying the truth, but since they don't say anything, it appears clear that the truth to be revealed is not something that would be beneficial to them (aka, they have something to hide).
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Oct 11, 2017 19:56:08 GMT
Or, given the established trend for a certain aggrieved party to immediately escalate a social media campaign in response to perceived injustice, sensible to keep their heads down.
"They haven't said anything so they must be hiding something" is *precisely* what this transparency line is designed to push as its leading narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 11, 2017 20:03:34 GMT
Or, given the established trend for a certain aggrieved party to immediately escalate a social media campaign in response to perceived injustice, sensible to keep their heads down. "They haven't said anything so they must be hiding something" is *precisely* what this transparency line is designed to push as its leading narrative. You know, when one side says that you gauranteed that had nothing to do with the escalation, and the other says that you are the one who escalated (basically, saying that you told a lie) it should be in your best interest to clarify the situation. If you don't, it probably means that for you is more convenient to leave the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Oct 11, 2017 20:13:07 GMT
How so, there's no proof to be had in any event, just aggravation whatever happens? I can't think why I'd want to put myself in that position and that's without going into any invisible factors.
I mean, Jarle has already come out in the blog to say the WTC committee lied, so that looks like a trap option to get involved with, whatever the truth.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 20:13:27 GMT
Looking at what the committees write on their facebook case, I think they are clearly saying that France's capitain lied on not having asked for the escalation. The French team silence on this is deafening. They are a third part, that siding with either Norway's or WTC narration would make it clear who is saying the truth, but since they don't say anything, it appears clear that the truth to be revealed is not something that would be beneficial to them (aka, they have something to hide). Or that they just want people to stop talking about it and forget about it. Which makes sense if they feel victimised somehow, they took it to the top, and the top agreed with them. Then they have their closure, since they got vindication via the judge decision. And they would just want to keep the whole thing private. Despite not having anything to hide (since the WTC and the consulted PP judge seem to agree that they were in the right to escalate it). If the incident is somehow embarrassing or traumatic to someone, then they might want to keep it hidden for reasons other than them being guilty. That's why the concept of privacy exists. Not everyone wants to air their dirty laundry in public. Of course, Norway seem to have no closure, but since the judges ruled against them, maybe their concerns are not seen as being as important.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 11, 2017 21:46:40 GMT
The point is, France comes out clean in both narrations, but in very different ways:
Norway says that:
1) France agreed with the game results and with the fact that the game was over 2) France din't know about escalation 3) France hadn't anything to do with the escalation, as the France capitain assured.
So France comes out clean since it did nothing.
WTC says:
1) France did NOT agree with the game result or with the fact that the game was over 2) France and Norway both did know about the escalation 3) France actually was the one that called for the escalation, in the figure of their capitain.
So in this narrative France comes out clean since while she was the one who did everything, she did so totally in her right since they refused to agree with the game result and called for the Head Judge with both teams knowing it, and Norway left before the outcome of the game was decided.
France has no reason to say what is the truth, since if the situation stays unclear they come out clean toward both parties.
But what if what really happened is (totally possible since the previous narratives took their respective points just trusting what France said to them):
1) France did agree with the outcome and confirmed that to Norway, filling the sheets. 2) France then changed their mind and asked for the escalation, without notify it to Norway. 3) France talked to the judge after Norway left, trying to get the result changed and saying that Norway just left before the game was finished.
In that case, both WTC and Norway would be saying the "truth" as they know it, and the only one that lied intentionally was France.
This is obviously just a speculation, but would explain why France would keep silent when just confirming the version of either WTC or Norway (without even needing to get into the fight) would make the situation a lot more clear. If either Norway or WTC is the one who lies, France could expose them pretty easily, but if both WTC and Norway say what they think is the truth, than the one who lies is France (by simple logic).
It would also explain why WTC keeps being vague with some details, saying that it has to protect someone. They would know that France lied to Norway, but they don't want them to be tagged as liars and unsportive (expecially since France avoided to fuel the drama like they asked).
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Oct 11, 2017 21:55:50 GMT
Couldn't this whole thing have been avoided by the Norwegians not making plans that are contingent on a multiple round tournament ending exactly on time? I mean, that is something I do for local steamrollers, never mind a 300 person event. That's the weirdest part for me, yeah. Were there no other flights back home that day?
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Oct 11, 2017 22:22:34 GMT
But what if what really happened is (totally possible since the previous narratives took their respective points just trusting what France said to them) :1) France did agree with the outcome and confirmed that to Norway, filling the sheets. 2) France then changed their mind and asked for the escalation, without notify it to Norway. 3) France talked to the judge after Norway left, trying to get the result changed and saying that Norway just left before the game was finished. In that case, both WTC and Norway would be saying the "truth" as they know it, and the only one that lied intentionally was France. This is obviously just a speculation, but would explain why France would keep silent when just confirming the version of either WTC or Norway (without even needing to get into the fight) would make the situation a lot more clear. If either Norway or WTC is the one who lies, France could expose them pretty easily, but if both WTC and Norway say what they think is the truth, than the one who lies is France (by simple logic). It would also explain why WTC keeps being vague with some details, saying that it has to protect someone. They would know that France lied to Norway, but they don't want them to be tagged as liars and unsportive (expecially since France avoided to fuel the drama like they asked). Could you maybe stop doing this tinfoil hat bullshit speculation, especially as a mod on this forum; it really does tip your hand to the general public such as we?
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 22:26:58 GMT
But what if what really happened is [snip] Aegis, I think your speculative scenario makes a lot of sense. I just think it misses one major thing: A compelling reason why the head judge didn't just go "Why are you complaining to me about a call made by a line judge during a game that is already over and the models packed away? The ruling stands, go away France Falbala." Clearly an argument will have been made as to *why* the ruling in the game was called into question afterwards. We know that the argument was non-trivial, according to the judge posts on facebook. I really don't understand the people who think there was no argument, that France just went "We conceded because we made an error, but the concession wasn't accepted, so we kept playing, the line judge said it was okay, and then they won, and... I think we should have won instead", and the head judge went "Yeah, ok, sure" to that. It makes no sense. There must have been a strong argument that we don't know.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 23:12:06 GMT
The point is, France comes out clean in both narrations, but in very different ways: Norway says that:1) France agreed with the game results and with the fact that the game was over 2) France din't know about escalation 3) France hadn't anything to do with the escalation, as the France capitain assured. So France comes out clean since it did nothing. WTC says:1) France did NOT agree with the game result or with the fact that the game was over 2) France and Norway both did know about the escalation 3) France actually was the one that called for the escalation, in the figure of their capitain. So in this narrative France comes out clean since while she was the one who did everything, she did so totally in her right since they refused to agree with the game result and called for the Head Judge with both teams knowing it, and Norway left before the outcome of the game was decided. France has no reason to say what is the truth, since if the situation stays unclear they come out clean toward both parties. But what if what really happened is (totally possible since the previous narratives took their respective points just trusting what France said to them) :1) France did agree with the outcome and confirmed that to Norway, filling the sheets. 2) France then changed their mind and asked for the escalation, without notify it to Norway. 3) France talked to the judge after Norway left, trying to get the result changed and saying that Norway just left before the game was finished. In that case, both WTC and Norway would be saying the "truth" as they know it, and the only one that lied intentionally was France. This is obviously just a speculation, but would explain why France would keep silent when just confirming the version of either WTC or Norway (without even needing to get into the fight) would make the situation a lot more clear. If either Norway or WTC is the one who lies, France could expose them pretty easily, but if both WTC and Norway say what they think is the truth, than the one who lies is France (by simple logic). It would also explain why WTC keeps being vague with some details, saying that it has to protect someone. They would know that France lied to Norway, but they don't want them to be tagged as liars and unsportive (expecially since France avoided to fuel the drama like they asked). According to Jarle the sheets were handed in before they left, which means before the head judge arrived. I can't be sure what he meant by "handed in", but according to the head judge the sheets were still at the tables when he arrived. Regardless of what any of us thinks may or may not be true, I think at least part of the issue is that not all parties involved have the same perception of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Oct 11, 2017 23:20:01 GMT
According to Jarle the sheets were handed in before they left, which means before the head judge arrived. I can't be sure what he meant by "handed in", but according to the head judge the sheets were still at the tables when he arrived. Regardless of what any of us thinks may or may not be true, I think at least part of the issue is that not all parties involved have the same perception of the situation. According to Jarle, a lot of things happened. We know by now he's an unreliable narrator.
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 12, 2017 0:23:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Gaston on Oct 12, 2017 0:23:01 GMT
The point is, France comes out clean in both narrations, but in very different ways: Norway says that:1) France agreed with the game results and with the fact that the game was over 2) France din't know about escalation 3) France hadn't anything to do with the escalation, as the France capitain assured. So France comes out clean since it did nothing. WTC says:1) France did NOT agree with the game result or with the fact that the game was over 2) France and Norway both did know about the escalation 3) France actually was the one that called for the escalation, in the figure of their capitain. So in this narrative France comes out clean since while she was the one who did everything, she did so totally in her right since they refused to agree with the game result and called for the Head Judge with both teams knowing it, and Norway left before the outcome of the game was decided. France has no reason to say what is the truth, since if the situation stays unclear they come out clean toward both parties. But what if what really happened is (totally possible since the previous narratives took their respective points just trusting what France said to them) :1) France did agree with the outcome and confirmed that to Norway, filling the sheets. 2) France then changed their mind and asked for the escalation, without notify it to Norway. 3) France talked to the judge after Norway left, trying to get the result changed and saying that Norway just left before the game was finished. In that case, both WTC and Norway would be saying the "truth" as they know it, and the only one that lied intentionally was France. This is obviously just a speculation, but would explain why France would keep silent when just confirming the version of either WTC or Norway (without even needing to get into the fight) would make the situation a lot more clear. If either Norway or WTC is the one who lies, France could expose them pretty easily, but if both WTC and Norway say what they think is the truth, than the one who lies is France (by simple logic). It would also explain why WTC keeps being vague with some details, saying that it has to protect someone. They would know that France lied to Norway, but they don't want them to be tagged as liars and unsportive (expecially since France avoided to fuel the drama like they asked). Why is France "she"?
|
|