wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353 
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 20:18:00 GMT
I was pointing out that they evidentially had not learned of why the game result was changed. Nor where they "letting it die" Or maybe they have learned, and this particularly individual is just still pissed about it. It seems hard for me to believe that the WTC would issue a public statement without ever contacting Norway privately and laying out the background. But I'll see if I can find the comments you refer to. |
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 20:23:09 GMT
That sounds like direct confirmation that the issue wasn't a rules issue, but rather something else. How does that make the WTC criticism fair? I was pointing out that they evidentially had not learned of why the game result was changed. Nor where they "letting it die" That does seem problematic. If the WTC hasn't clarified with Norway Hugin why they lost that's a big problem. Or maybe they have and the player is dissatisfied with the WTC's public response? |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 20:34:14 GMT
I am not going to speculate. I just responded to the information given. Especially when the information about this being a sportsmanship issue being essentially, "I heard from a guy."
Either way this was not handled well by any party, Jarle or the wtc.
In conclusion everyone sucks, why try?
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 20:35:07 GMT
I haven't found the response in question, but reading on facebook is interesting anyway. One of the WTC people (Tomas Mennes) is stating:
"As to why we are not giving you "the whole version": because it would take a lot of time and space, because we want to avoid this to become a public trial and, most of all, because we want to protect the people involved.
The last time something like this happened, the community showed its ugliest face and bullied a player involved into quitting this hobby. This is something we want to avoid AT ALL COSTS."
And again:
"Yes, we are vague. There is a reason for that. We want to protect our judges and our players, even if we have to protect them from theirselves."
So it seems pretty clear to me - something happened that the WTC want to keep out of the public sphere at all costs. Because if they were specific about it, it would publicly shame someone, like has happened before (I presume it was that guy caught on camera moving a model when his opponent wasn't looking a while back).
One of the critics says:
"Post facto overturns are never okay without clear evidence of cheating, and evidence of cheating absolutely needs to be made public and cheaters barred from returning for at least one year."
I think this is the point of disagreement. Many people in the public feel that public shaming is the way to go. That if someone gets publicly shamed, they deserve it. The WTC guy says the opposite - that they want to avoid publicly shaming at all costs.
I think I side with the WTC guy in this argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 20:36:19 GMT
I am not going to speculate. I just responded to the information given. Especially when the information about this being a sportsmanship issue being essentially, "I heard from a guy." Either way this was not handled well by any party, Jarle or the wtc. In conclusion everyone sucks, why try? Sadly, team Hugin's response was truly bewildering for adults. I really think they shoved their foot in their mouth. Their apology is worth noting. At this point the WTC should prolly just throw someone under the bus and be done with it. |
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 20:37:51 GMT
I haven't found the response in question, but reading on facebook is interesting anyway. One of the WTC people (Tomas Mennes) is stating: "As to why we are not giving you "the whole version": because it would take a lot of time and space, because we want to avoid this to become a public trial and, most of all, because we want to protect the people involved. The last time something like this happened, the community showed its ugliest face and bullied a player involved into quitting this hobby. This is something we want to avoid AT ALL COSTS." And again: "Yes, we are vague. There is a reason for that. We want to protect our judges and our players, even if we have to protect them from theirselves." So it seems pretty clear to me - something happened that the WTC want to keep out of the public sphere at all costs. Because if they were specific about it, it would publicly shame someone, like has happened before (I presume it was that guy caught on camera moving a model when his opponent wasn't looking a while back). One of the critics says: "Post facto overturns are never okay without clear evidence of cheating, and evidence of cheating absolutely needs to be made public and cheaters barred from returning for at least one year." I think this is the point of disagreement. Many people in the public feel that public shaming is the way to go. That if someone gets publicly shamed, they deserve it. The WTC guy says the opposite - that they want to avoid publicly shaming at all costs. I think I side with the WTC guy in this argument. I'm glad someone else is reading between the lines here. What the WTC said on the surface is only half of it, if any of it at all. |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 21:07:38 GMT
At least if pressed, the WTC are laying it out perfectly clear: They won't tell us the details, so we might as well stop asking. It's not reading between the lines when they say "If we told you all the details, it would violate the wishes for privacy of the parties involved, so we won't".
It could be cheating, where whoever did it ended up admitting it and going "please don't tell anyone!" Or it could be something like intimidation, bullying, bribery, collusion, something of that nature. I presume we will never know, and if the people involved all agree that it is nobody else's business, then we just have to respect that.
All I know is that I disagree with the people on facebook going that "wins should never be reversed for any non-game-rule-based reason". If the win came about illegitimately for a non-game-rule-based-reason, then it totally should.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 21:21:54 GMT
At least if pressed, the WTC are laying it out perfectly clear: They won't tell us the details, so we might as well stop asking. It's not reading between the lines when they say "If we told you all the details, it would violate the wishes for privacy of the parties involved, so we won't". It could be cheating, where whoever did it ended up admitting it and going "please don't tell anyone!" Or it could be something like intimidation, bullying, bribery, collusion, something of that nature. I presume we will never know, and if the people involved all agree that it is nobody else's business, then we just have to respect that. All I know is that I disagree with the people on facebook going that "wins should never be reversed for any non-game-rule-based reason". If the win came about illegitimately for a non-game-rule-based-reason, then it totally should. I'll tell you, I was bullied out of a win in the team event at Lock and Load this year. I called the judge, the judge agreed with me, then I decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Our team went 1-2 that round on what should have been a win and had I challenged it we would have been in the finals. I'm a pretty passive dude which can be a severe character flaw at times. In retrospect my lack of gumption cost my entire team. |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 21:44:38 GMT
So the wtc guy said specifically the countercharge was the only infraction looked at.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 21:57:18 GMT
So the wtc guy said specifically the countercharge was the only infraction looked at. On facebook? |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 22:03:02 GMT
Yes on Facebook. Where you posed the question to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 22:13:54 GMT
Yes on Facebook. Where you posed the question to them. Interesting. I didn't get a reply notification. I see what Tomas said and now I remain bewildered. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 22:18:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 22:18:37 GMT
Yes on Facebook. Where you posed the question to them. Interesting. I didn't get a reply notification. I see what Tomas said and now I remain bewildered. I would hav been totally cool with France getting the win if there was a sports issue. I don't believe there was in this case but t I am posing a hypothetical. As long as they are clear and say the match win was awarded to France because of poor sports, then yeah cool. That is not what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 22:22:04 GMT
Interesting. I didn't get a reply notification. I see what Tomas said and now I remain bewildered. I would hav been totally cool with France getting the win if there was a sports issue. I don't believe there was in this case but t I am posing a hypothetical. As long as they are clear and say the match win was awarded to France because of poor sports, then yeah cool. That is not what happened. So what I'm being told by...someone, is that a certain someone else was unhappy with the result of the match so marched it up the food chain to the head judge. These other someones were unhappy with what they saw at the table. But if it was just the call on the counter charge, and that's it, why did it take so long for the Head Judge to arrive on such a simple call? Why couldn't the floor judge have handled that? In other words, sounds like bullying but the WTC is saying it wasn't. Maybe it was bullying, maybe it wasn't, but the WTC should defend themselves rather than admit culpability. |
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Oct 10, 2017 22:42:23 GMT
It's entirely possible that the best thing the WTC committee can do (from the POV of their mission statement) is leave themselves on the hook rather than individuals or teams and let committee churn take its toll. The 2014 situation clearly left scars, and they have a rolling membership anyway.
|
|
