For Alliance Tournament X the referees can call a match null and void or declare a result if they believe that one of the teams is not competing. This tournament is designed to showcase the talents of pilots and should be entertaining.

dunno for me the "if they believe that one of the teams is not competing" made it clear

Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.

If you sell it after you have won, you have tried(and succeeded) to win.

I agree completely. I was under the impression that any sort of deal-making, either before or during the tourney, was forbidden. It wouldn't have helped our team, but I wonder how many other teams didn't do it because they thought CCP would actually enforce their own rules.

Tackling with ISK.

l2r

Yeah that Keres was going to demolish the Vindicator and Oneiros in the last 20 seconds of the match

Our team is powered by pizza tears.

This thread makes us strong and we are competing at full force.

...

Participants should be prepared, in their chosen ships and in a fleet, 30 minutes before their scheduled fight time. Teams will be brought by a GM to a star system in uncharted space and designated as Team 1 and Team 2. If you are not ready with this time allocation you will be disqualified from this match and the opposing team will receive maximum points as a result.

If your flagship is destroyed, it may not be fielded again during the tournament.

Teams may field no more than 1 logistics ship.

ITT OP tries to twist the semantics on a statment to make it seem like a single EWAR frigate had the only option of running away.

Anything else was not "competing"

Personally I really wanted to watch it avoid the other ships for the rest of the match and feel utterly robbed that I had to both watch it explode AND realize there was metagaming in my EvE.

In case you can't tell, I am being sarrrrrcastic
- Homer

This is both patently false and also the exact reason rules like this ARE deliberately vague.

Can you quote the rule that says this?

Hint: see above for why your answer won't be valid.

You are wrong on every count, sorry.

Yes, they are deliberately vague to avoid drawing an absolute line. This is why they say "at the discretion of" and not "any payment is a violation" -- it's why they say "not competing" instead of "not firing all weapons."

Sreegs literally said EXACTLY this in the rules and discussions about ATX ahead of time. So who has the learning disability? The guy stating *exactly what the event organizers said would be the case* or you making up your own semantic definitions?

I'm about to blow your mind, so sit down.

"Statutory Interpretation"

In law, this is the process where "the rules" are interpreted. The interpretations are open to discussion, and change based on legal precedent (a judge ruling X is a valid interpretation of Y).

Look, here, have a link buddy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Try to tell me again that all rules are "hard and fast" when every legal system in the Western World is based on *exactly the opposite of this* being more logical. Please, entertain me.


Except, the ball crossing the line doesn't always indicate a goal based on what else is happening, much like how contact between two players is interpreted on the fly as either a "foul" or not and there is a very loose definition of what actually constitutes a foul, which is often applied differently.

Another example: there's no rule that says shooting someone is a crime, because it isn't.

I suggest you look it up. You have a very weak grasp of what you are arguing, luckily CCP don't.

A) Test did not pay for a win. They had won already. What they payed for is to have the last frig fight them.

B) What Hydra and Outbreak did was different in the fact that one team was winning and then self-destructed.

And I don't think you will see much meta gaming from here on out. Now all you need to advance is to win. No more points. Win and move on, lose and your out. As long as we don't have a " A and B" teams I don't think anyone will trow the match.


p.s. I personally thought the meta-gaming live made it more interesting not less. When test payed 3 billion for the frig to fight them they had no idea if it would get them in the tournament. If one team would of scored more they would be out, and paid the 3 billion for nothing.

How is running away from a fight competing. Is not it more competitive to charge back in and try to fight. Plus they made billions to fight. How is that wrong.

So I ask - what is more entertaining, watching a frigate kite for the rest of the match, or watching it explode for 2billion ISK? Since competing was impossible for the frigate (he had no chance) how can you say his not shooting is evidence of no competition? Surely, one part of "competing" is that one needs to have a chance, no?

he's in pizza. they're a 4chan guild. you're being trolled.

Why ask ? Do you honestly care ?

You're asking us to speculate on a ruling that hasn't and cannot be made. What is your point?

Also, yes, I believe the exact same situation occurring with any two teams would be treated the same way, and you can't say it won't be without :tinfoil:

Null hypothesis: all teams treated equally
Alt hypothesis: clear bias in how teams are treated, an expectation for unequal results

To accept the latter we need clear and demonstrable evidence of it. You can't say "well I think it is and YOU ARE DELUSIONAL IF YOU DO NOT AGREE!!!!" as there is absolutely no basis of that argument in fact, written, mentioned or even implied. There is no precedent for it nor any suggestion of one.

Fundamentally I find it hard to believe someone's epistemology allows them to believe that a possible eventuality must therefore logically be the one which would happen.

You can't say this, either, so you must be having you entomological system changed by forces not in the general equation here.

This is known as bias.

Actually this is a forum where your posts (baseless rumour threads) are explicitly against the rules.

Hope that helps.

If it weren't for double standards, CCP would have no standards at all.

I refuted your argument by showing it has no basis in fact or logic. Your position "CCP would ban Hydra/0utbreak for doing the same thing" is indefensible conjecture based neither on precedent or facts at hand. I don't need to "look up big words" to make this argument, but I will note that your argument is merely an adhominem retort and you *still* have failed to tackle any of the logical points in question.

You don't need precedent to show the lack of bias. Indeed, you *absolutely require* it to show the presence of bias. I have asked you for this several times but you just post-angry and tell me I am delusional, yet can show no reason why your point of view is valid.

You again are acting like there is some evidence any un-fair play has happened. This is a self sustaining delusion; you are stating you know un-fair play has happened because you are saying it happened.

You need to break away from circular reasoning and show me any basis for your statement "Hydra/0utbreak would be banned for the same" which isn't simply your opinion.

Evolution is only a theory. More specifically it is a theoretical model based on all available evidence and thinking on the subject. It is also not contested by any non-correlating evidence and there is no logical reason to see the opposite as true; that evolution doesn't happen.

The nature of epistemology is such that you can chose to see this as "factual" (absolute truth with no flaw) or you can decide that is is simply the best thinking on the subject currently, and that further advancements might be made.

Assuming that 100% of the nature of being cannot be explained by evolution is not evidence that evolution doesn't exist, but merely a suggestion more information is needed. Evidence needs to contradict and break the logic of the assumption (that evolution happens) before you can state factually it does not. This is the problem fundies run into; their thinking is logically flawed and circular reasoning prevents them from moving out of it.

It's interesting that (once again) you raise a subject as a parallel and completely fail to realize that it undermines your own argument; the only person stating their opinion as fact and backing it up by circular reasoning is you.

You are the fundamentalist thinker, here.

You still claim a competition needs "hard and fast" rules but you still haven't told me how that can be, when your cited example of soccer has no "hard and fast" rule of what a goal is.

You really need to do better than this if you're going to go anywhere in life.

False. I claim no such thing. Specifically, I do not state "CCP are wholly non-bias" anywhere, and do not claim it as fact.

I stated (and will again) that if you want your statement to the opposite of this to be true, you need to show at least *some* evidence of it.

All you are saying is CCP are bias because they are bias and the reasoning is self-contained.

You have failed, utterly, to demonstrate why "hard and fast" rules are needed when I have cited repeat precedence (without reply from you) on perfect examples where this works in both legal systems and competitions of a similar nature.

I gave you a simple sentence to complete last time and you failed, merely flapping your arms and claiming you are right. Therefore, I will do it again and see if your argument has developed any:

CCP would have acted differently in a Hydra/0utbreak match because _____________________________ - an example of the same thing happening before would be when CCP _____________________________________ to ______________ .

Unless you can actually state a position, you do not have one.

Unless "angry and throwing around baseless accusations" is really a position you want to take. If it is, state it as such and we can move on.

I could care less ...