|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 9:24:34 GMT
Incorrect. They stated the post was an attempt to explain the reasoning behind the decision. They attempted to say what the ruling was based on explicitly. They did so very poorly. No the whole issue is a lack of clarity with regards to how the ruling was made or the justifications for it. They also stated explicitly that the complaint was solely a game play issue, and that outside factors where definitely not a factor. The head judges comments resolved the issues I had. I believed the etc is in the right now per his comments on the issue. They used unambiguous plain language and you missed the point. I don't see what you see in the explanations given. Can you provide quotes where they explicitly state what you claim they state? Maybe I missed the point, but then help me see your point by backing it up. Yeah you missed a lot of points. They stated specifically in the prompt of the piece they released stating "this is the attempt to explain the reasoning behind the decision."that line is verbatim. The only issue addressed is the game infraction. They give paper thin justifications, vitriol abounds. Under trevor bonds comment in the comments of that thread timothy baer asks if there was another issue at the table, essentially if there where extenuating factors. Tomas Mennes (who is one of the committee members) states "The countercharge was what was looked at. There was a disagreement with how that was handled." Copied verbatim. Saying in plain language that there where no extenuating factors and the only issue they ruled on was the game play infraction, nothing else. The head judge (Jason Ennos) posts up a revised time line from his point of view, in the same comments section. Also backing up the notion that this was entirely a ruling on the game play infraction. It is different than the one provided by Jarle. If given that time line, yeah the ruling from the wtc was in the right. Though it also contradicts what the French said about escalation. The information from Jarle was that the team cap of France said they did not escalate while the judge claims it was a member of the french team (he did not remember nor should he release the name) that asked for an escalation.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 9:25:13 GMT
Incorrect. They stated the post was an attempt to explain the reasoning behind the decision. They attempted to say what the ruling was based on explicitly. They did so very poorly. No the whole issue is a lack of clarity with regards to how the ruling was made or the justifications for it. They also stated explicitly that the complaint was solely a game play issue, and that outside factors where definitely not a factor. The head judges comments resolved the issues I had. I believed the etc is in the right now per his comments on the issue. They used unambiguous plain language and you missed the point. I don't see what you see in the explanations given. Can you provide quotes where they explicitly state what you claim they state? Maybe I missed the point, but then help me see your point by backing it up. Yeah you missed a lot of points. They stated specifically in the prompt of the piece they released stating "this is the attempt to explain the reasoning behind the decision."that line is verbatim. The only issue addressed is the game infraction. They give paper thin justifications, vitriol abounds. Under trevor bonds comment in the comments of that thread timothy baer asks if there was another issue at the table, essentially if there where extenuating factors. Tomas Mennes (who is one of the committee members) states "The countercharge was what was looked at. There was a disagreement with how that was handled." Copied verbatim. Saying in plain language that there where no extenuating factors and the only issue they ruled on was the game play infraction, nothing else. The head judge (Jason Ennos) posts up a revised time line from his point of view, in the same comments section. Also backing up the notion that this was entirely a ruling on the game play infraction. It is different than the one provided by Jarle. If given that time line, yeah the ruling from the wtc was in the right. Though it also contradicts what the French said about escalation. The information from Jarle was that the team cap of France said they did not escalate while the judge claims it was a member of the french team (he did not remember nor should he release the name) that asked for an escalation.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 9:29:44 GMT
If I were the WTC I would just give the full story at this point, naming and shaming everyone involved, I know they want to avoid people getting personally abused like the 'Finger of God' player a few years back, but this endless speculation and calling their ability to judge correctly into question is damaging the reputation of the WTC and puts the likelihood of future WTC's in jeopardy. If you don't want to be publically berated and humiliated then don't cheat and don't be unsporting. WTC are making a martyr of themselves to protect someone who is in the wrong. That would be a poor decision. The head judge posted an explanation that answered the issues to a satisfactory degree. Nothing else is necessary
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 9:41:19 GMT
If I were the WTC I would just give the full story at this point, naming and shaming everyone involved, I know they want to avoid people getting personally abused like the 'Finger of God' player a few years back, but this endless speculation and calling their ability to judge correctly into question is damaging the reputation of the WTC and puts the likelihood of future WTC's in jeopardy. If you don't want to be publically berated and humiliated then don't cheat and don't be unsporting. WTC are making a martyr of themselves to protect someone who is in the wrong. That would be a poor decision. The head judge posted an explanation that answered the issues to a satisfactory degree. Nothing else is necessary I am happy to accept that the WTC was in the right, I know from experience Jason Enos is an excellent judge and that he would have made the correct call, plus my mate who knows more than me about the situation said the WTC was in the right. However not everyone is satisfied that the correct call has been made, and that is still damaging to their reputation.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 9:45:15 GMT
Under trevor bonds comment in the comments of that thread timothy baer asks if there was another issue at the table, essentially if there where extenuating factors. Tomas Mennes (who is one of the committee members) states "The countercharge was what was looked at. There was a disagreement with how that was handled." Copied verbatim. Saying in plain language that there where no extenuating factors and the only issue they ruled on was the game play infraction, nothing else. I think we just interpret these statements differently. You see "There was a disagreement about how the gameplay infraction was handled" and conclude that the "handling" in question was entirely rules technical, and that it is literally impossible that there were any non-rules factors in play. I see the statement and conclude that there were problematic factors of a private nature that made the handling of the disagreement about the gameplay infraction into a sensitive, "sucky" issue, as octavius put it, that they don't want to talk about. If there were no non-rules factors in play, why did the WTC state that they were being intentionally vague in order to protect the individuals involved? Do people really need protection from "person A made a rules error and a judge made a ruling that overruled a previous judge ruling"? But it seems like you are un-convinceable in this matter, which is cool, different opinions are to be expected...
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Oct 11, 2017 9:45:18 GMT
That would be a poor decision. The head judge posted an explanation that answered the issues to a satisfactory degree. Nothing else is necessary I am happy to accept that the WTC was in the right, I know from experience Jason Enos is an excellent judge and that he would have made the correct call, plus my mate who knows more than me about the situation said the WTC was in the right. However not everyone is satisfied that the correct call has been made, and that is still damaging to their reputation. I think they went to every length possible to clear this up without shaming anyone and I agree that they should not do that. The damage is already done, not entirely by their own doing, but mostly by the internet accepting different (incomplete) versions of the story as truth. This damage will either heal with time or some people will hold a grudge forever. Either way, there's nothing more that can really be done.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 9:45:50 GMT
That would be a poor decision. The head judge posted an explanation that answered the issues to a satisfactory degree. Nothing else is necessary I am happy to accept that the WTC was in the right, I know from experience Jason Enos is an excellent judge and that he would have made the correct call, plus my mate who knows more than me about the situation said the WTC was in the right. However not everyone is satisfied that the correct call has been made, and that is still damaging to their reputation. I don't see how that is possible. With the head judges rationale posted their position and justifications are very clear.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 9:49:18 GMT
I am happy to accept that the WTC was in the right, I know from experience Jason Enos is an excellent judge and that he would have made the correct call, plus my mate who knows more than me about the situation said the WTC was in the right. However not everyone is satisfied that the correct call has been made, and that is still damaging to their reputation. That seems to basically be the situation. People who know what really happened say that the WTC did the right thing. Many people who don't know what happened say that the WTC must have made a huge mistake and that this damages their reputation. But the WTC are willing to take the hit to their reputation in order to keep it private what really happened. They are assuming, presumably correctly, that nobody will care a few weeks from now and next year's event will be a huge success again no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Oct 11, 2017 9:49:32 GMT
Under trevor bonds comment in the comments of that thread timothy baer asks if there was another issue at the table, essentially if there where extenuating factors. Tomas Mennes (who is one of the committee members) states "The countercharge was what was looked at. There was a disagreement with how that was handled." Copied verbatim. Saying in plain language that there where no extenuating factors and the only issue they ruled on was the game play infraction, nothing else. I think we just interpret these statements differently. You see "There was a disagreement about how the gameplay infraction was handled" and conclude that the "handling" in question was entirely rules technical, and that it is literally impossible that there were any non-rules factors in play. I see the statement and conclude that there were problematic factors of a private nature that made the handling of the disagreement about the gameplay infraction into a sensitive, "sucky" issue, as octavius put it, that they don't want to talk about. If there were no non-rules factors in play, why did the WTC state that they were being intentionally vague in order to protect the individuals involved? Do people really need protection from "person A made a rules error and a judge made a ruling that overruled a previous judge ruling"? But it seems like you are un-convinceable in this matter, which is cool, different opinions are to be expected... The post of the head judge mentioned above said that the results were changed because the French score sheets were handed in after the fact (the score registration was at that point being done based on Norse sheets), but that for the game at hand, both sheets were present at the table when he arrived. This means that apparently the dispute hadn't been settled yet and the Norse should've known this, they were already gone however and the judge had no other option than to rule against them. The original dispute may in theory not have been enough to warrant the head judge interfering, but regardless it was escalated and in that case all parties should wait for the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 10:01:39 GMT
Under trevor bonds comment in the comments of that thread timothy baer asks if there was another issue at the table, essentially if there where extenuating factors. Tomas Mennes (who is one of the committee members) states "The countercharge was what was looked at. There was a disagreement with how that was handled." Copied verbatim. Saying in plain language that there where no extenuating factors and the only issue they ruled on was the game play infraction, nothing else. I think we just interpret these statements differently. You see "There was a disagreement about how the gameplay infraction was handled" and conclude that the "handling" in question was entirely rules technical, and that it is literally impossible that there were any non-rules factors in play. I see the statement and conclude that there were problematic factors of a private nature that made the handling of the disagreement about the gameplay infraction into a sensitive, "sucky" issue, as octavius put it, that they don't want to talk about. If there were no non-rules factors in play, why did the WTC state that they were being intentionally vague in order to protect the individuals involved? Do people really need protection from "person A made a rules error and a judge made a ruling that overruled a previous judge ruling"? But it seems like you are un-convinceable in this matter, which is cool, different opinions are to be expected... Not un-convincable just not convinced. Where is your back up that there where any sports issues where incorporated into the ruling? I showed in three separate places where they said a rules violation was at fault and none with any references to an outside game factor being the culprit. Actually yeah being intentionally vague with naming people is the correct way to go about it. Publicly pointing fingers is generally not a good thing especially when you are supposed to be impartial. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone it is an issue with responsibilities. Laying blame is not the job of an adjudicating body.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 10:03:56 GMT
I am happy to accept that the WTC was in the right, I know from experience Jason Enos is an excellent judge and that he would have made the correct call, plus my mate who knows more than me about the situation said the WTC was in the right. However not everyone is satisfied that the correct call has been made, and that is still damaging to their reputation. I don't see how that is possible. With the head judges rationale posted their position and justifications are very clear. I agree that should be enough, however looking at people's posts on Facebook there are still some who believe the wrong call was made.
If I were a gambling man I would bet that the issue escalated to the head judge was one of team captains getting involved with the whole countercharge ruling, and one party ended up feeling like they had been browbeaten or coerced into accepting the result. Issues are meant to be resolved between the two people actually playing, and a judge if needed, if you are anyone else, even the team captain, then you are meant to keep your beak out of it.
edit, actually thinking back to Jarle's original blog post he even said that both players and team captains agreed on the countercharge ruling, what struck me when I read that was 'why are the Captains getting involved?', it his not hard to imagine a captain sticking their oar in and being forceful in trying to get a win for their team
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 10:05:36 GMT
I am happy to accept that the WTC was in the right, I know from experience Jason Enos is an excellent judge and that he would have made the correct call, plus my mate who knows more than me about the situation said the WTC was in the right. However not everyone is satisfied that the correct call has been made, and that is still damaging to their reputation. That seems to basically be the situation. People who know what really happened say that the WTC did the right thing. Many people who don't know what happened say that the WTC must have made a huge mistake and that this damages their reputation. But the WTC are willing to take the hit to their reputation in order to keep it private what really happened. They are assuming, presumably correctly, that nobody will care a few weeks from now and next year's event will be a huge success again no matter what. Again not true. There are a decent amount of wtc team members in that thread that disagree the wtc did the right thing. I can go through and match names to them if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by quicksand on Oct 11, 2017 11:30:50 GMT
Without naming names, what happened in the 2014 wtc that everyone ia referring to? That would be the 'finger of god' incident. A player, while on film, was caught doing some questionable things. Things like nudging a model with his finger during his opponent's turn. Not measuring a model's charge range when it was a questionable distance. Reading the dice wrong in a way that favors him. Some people claimed it was sloppy play and some people claimed he was actively cheating. He got raked over the coals pretty well. He also used an extra unit of Bane Riders at least in one game. IIRC this was how it was caught at first and then also other things were noticed.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 11:38:09 GMT
There was at least one post stating specifically that the countercharge was the only thing being looked at. The way this whole fallout was handled is more than likely affected by other factors, but according to someone from the WTC the dispute itself was based solely on a gameplay dispute. In the post I saw on facebook, Tim asked "Were there any other issues than the countercharge thing related to this decision?" and the WTC person said "No, it was just the countercharge thing". And obviously this rules issue is what the whole thing arises from. There isn't a second rules issue, like, ooops, the Norway player actually also had too many models on the table or something. There is just a single rules issue. The rules issue is the countercharge thing. That's what that answer meant. My point is simply that there is obviously some other factor involved that isn't being disclosed. Something that is related to the discussion of the countercharge rules issue. The WTC judge simply says that the issue "was not trivial". He doesn't say why it was not trivial. If it was just "someone made a rules mistake", then it would be trivial. People make rules mistakes in every single game. I don't see how anyone could think that an issue requiring reversal of game results and an enquiry by the WTC committee afterwards is all just about someone making a rules mistake. The game results "reversal" was not a reversal. By the head judge's account, incorrect results had been entered and were corrected. The enquiry seems mostly the result of a vocal complaint.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 11:51:04 GMT
Under trevor bonds comment in the comments of that thread timothy baer asks if there was another issue at the table, essentially if there where extenuating factors. Tomas Mennes (who is one of the committee members) states "The countercharge was what was looked at. There was a disagreement with how that was handled." Copied verbatim. Saying in plain language that there where no extenuating factors and the only issue they ruled on was the game play infraction, nothing else. I think we just interpret these statements differently. You see "There was a disagreement about how the gameplay infraction was handled" and conclude that the "handling" in question was entirely rules technical, and that it is literally impossible that there were any non-rules factors in play. I see the statement and conclude that there were problematic factors of a private nature that made the handling of the disagreement about the gameplay infraction into a sensitive, "sucky" issue, as octavius put it, that they don't want to talk about. If there were no non-rules factors in play, why did the WTC state that they were being intentionally vague in order to protect the individuals involved? Do people really need protection from "person A made a rules error and a judge made a ruling that overruled a previous judge ruling"? But it seems like you are un-convinceable in this matter, which is cool, different opinions are to be expected... The captains got involved and the head judge had to come over to adjudicate. Regardless of the issue itself, that indicates the situation around it was not copacetic. What it doesn't necessarily indicate is cheating. That said, I'm fairly sure the captains getting involved is an infraction of the event rules. If I recall correctly, players are not allowed to communicate with other team members during ongoing games with the one exception of telling them the outcome of another game. Clearly that line was crossed in this instance, by both parties even. Now, seeing as this as far as I can tell wasn't done to cheat (no advice was given) and both teams were at fault, I can see why the committee might not want to make too big a deal out of it and certainly not a public one. Hence the attempt to remain tactful and circumspect. Best way to go about this? That's certainly debatable. Evidence of players trying to cheat? Not at all.
|
|