|
Post by pangurban on Oct 12, 2017 0:42:29 GMT
Parce que c’est la France, mon ami!
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 12, 2017 5:11:50 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? Why should I? I'm just trying to understand the situation analyzing what has been given to us. The speculation isn't very "tinfoil bullshit", since basically is a mix-match of the versions of WTC and Norway on things they known first-hand and not reported (Norway knows first hand if France did agree with he outcome or not, and WTC knows for sure if France was the one calling the escalation or not. Taking Norway's version for the agreement on the output and WTC version on the escalation, that is what comes out). That said, I specified that this is another possible (but in no way proven) way facts could have been happened, a way where both WTC and Norway said what they think is the truth. If that is not what happened, France team is free to come here (or wherever they wish) to say their version and clarify their position. Speculations are only a result of WTC vagueness and France silence, if they don't like them, they should just say what really happened. Until now, the only sure thing we have is Norway saying that France's captain assured them that they had nothing to do with the escalation, and the Head Judge saying that the "third party" that asked the escalation was one member of the France team, the capitain in particular if he remembers well. Those two versions seem to clash, so someone is not telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 12, 2017 5:19:38 GMT
Because in my mother language France is a "she" (and I think in French too), and I'm not native english so I could have totally messed up on that.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 12, 2017 5:22:46 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. The only argument that comes to mind to explain that is that France replied "the game wasn't over, we were still discussing and Norway left". Again, just a logic assumption to explain why the Head Judge ruled like that. If someone knows what really happened is free to share. According to WTC, what happened was: 1) there was the rewind 2) there were disagreements of if rewinding was the correct way to handle the issue 3) the head judge was called to decide 4) Norway left before the judge arrived, and so before the rewinding issue was officially ruled on and the game could finish.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 12, 2017 7:32:01 GMT
According to WTC, what happened was: 1) there was the rewind 2) there were disagreements of if rewinding was the correct way to handle the issue 3) the head judge was called to decide 4) Norway left before the judge arrived, and so before the rewinding issue was officially ruled on and the game could finish. Agreed. My point is just that it obviously isn't enough for France to just say "We disagree that the rewinding was the correct way to handle the issue". And then leave it to the head judge to ruminate on that statement. They will have had to have made some sort of argument as to *why* they thought that rewinding was not the correct way to handle the issue, and why the line judge's agreement to this should be overruled by the head judge. Jarle said that the French team seemed to be debating the issue at the table, but since it was in French he didn't understand it. Do you agree with this, or am I completely mad?
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 12, 2017 7:41:01 GMT
According to WTC, what happened was: 1) there was the rewind 2) there were disagreements of if rewinding was the correct way to handle the issue 3) the head judge was called to decide 4) Norway left before the judge arrived, and so before the rewinding issue was officially ruled on and the game could finish. Agreed. My point is just that it obviously isn't enough for France to just say "We disagree that the rewinding was the correct way to handle the issue". And then leave it to the head judge to ruminate on that statement. They will have had to have made some sort of argument as to *why* they thought that rewinding was not the correct way to handle the issue, and why the line judge's agreement to this should be overruled by the head judge. Jarle said that the French team seemed to be debating the issue at the table, but since it was in French he didn't understand it. Do you agree with this, or am I completely mad? I agree, but the vagueness of the WTC in explaining what exact was ruled makes impossible for us to know if those strong arguments were made or not (they just confirmed that the Head Judge ruled about the rewind and only that, but they refused to explain the details). That said, just having called the head judge is something that the French capitain denied to Jarle, so either the WTC judge or the France capitain have lied (or Jarle have lied into having that confirmation from the France captain, but that is unlikely since that conversation was the reason he made the apology post to begin with).
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 12, 2017 8:03:37 GMT
That said, just having called the head judge is something that the French capitain denied to Jarle, so either the WTC judge or the France capitain have lied (or Jarle have lied into having that confirmation from the France captain, but that is unlikely since the call was the reason he made the apology post to begin with). Yeah, I agree with that. Or at least someone have presented incorrect information at some point. Maybe the third party who escalated the issue claimed to the WTC judge to be the French capitain, but actually wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 12, 2017 8:10:42 GMT
I think it was Professor Plum, in the Conservatory with the Candlestick...
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 12, 2017 8:16:38 GMT
Because in my mother language France is a "she" (and I think in French too), and I'm not native english so I could have totally messed up on that. It's definitely tricky when some languages have noun genders and others don't. I first thought maybe the French capitain was a woman, but that seems unlikely...
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 12, 2017 8:44:46 GMT
France has 5 guys, the judge team has a lot more and Norway has 5 more... It's entirely possible different people said different things and lead to the judges decision that a team leaving should not mean they win a dispute. Which makes sense...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 12, 2017 8:46:06 GMT
France has 5 guys, the judge team has a lot more and Norway has 5 more... It's entirely possible different people said different things and lead to the judges decision that a team leaving should not mean they win a dispute. Which makes sense... They should have had a 5 a side football match to decide the winner
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 12, 2017 8:49:30 GMT
Perhaps the issue can be solved with a grudge match on next year's wtc
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 12, 2017 8:50:45 GMT
Perhaps the issue can be solved with a grudge match on next year's wtc Well Jarle has said he wont be attending the WTC ever again, so I guess he will forfeit that match as well...
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Oct 12, 2017 8:57:11 GMT
I think this is all silly and is part of a conspiracy to move us away from the important things.
Namely that Cryx is OP. Nerf! Nerf! Nerf!
Wake up Sheeple! Big Cryxian is pulling the wool over your eyes!
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 12, 2017 9:00:10 GMT
I think this is all silly and is part of a conspiracy to move us away from the important things. Namely that Cryx is OP. Nerf! Nerf! Nerf! Wake up Sheeple! Big Cryxian is pulling the wool over your eyes! via Imgflip Meme Generator
|
|